> >>> Hard to say what is good for those names imho, don't like
> >>> "anytype" :-(
> >>
> >> How about "any"? It's a reserved word per SQL99, I think.
>
> > I would actually stick to opaque in that case, already used in other db's.
>
> I want to change the name because (a) we are changing the semantics,
> (b) we can't throw notices for opaque if we keep it as a valid choice.
Hmm, "any" would sound like it is the same as opaque. Would "any" really be
all allowed types ? I think we would want to eliminate that altogether.
If it is not all types I would rather use a more restrictive name (nulltype
/ anynumeric).
Imho opaque is missing a runtime type info, like a descriptor,
and thus only "pass by value" could not be allowed anymore.
I guess I must sleep over this, not convinced about depricating opaque yet :-)
> I meant that if the one name is "any", then making the other "anyarray"
> (ie, both without "type" on the end) is consistent.
Ah, good.
Andreas
