Tom Lane wrote:
> So it seems neither can_coerce_type() nor find_coercion_pathway() are
> really particularly well thought out in terms of what they test or don't
> test. I'm not very sure what a good refactoring would look like,
> but I am sure that I don't want all their call sites having to
> individually account for ANYfoo types. Any thoughts?
Yeah, I remember thinking at the time that some of it was a bit
backwards, but it's been almost 6 months since I did the original enum
patch, so I'll need to refresh my memory. I'll have a look over the
weekend and see if I can come up with something that'll work for these
various cases. To begin with I'll need to do a survey of the call sites
to see what they really need, since perhaps it isn't what the coerce
functions are currently offering. :) I completely agree that anything
requiring call sites to understand specifics about ANY* types is a bad
idea, the most that we would want would be a generic IsGeneric(typoid)
macro, but it would be nice to hide that inside a coerce function as
well. We'll see.
Cheers
Tom
