On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 16:30, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
>> Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of mar dic 28 10:46:31 -0300 2010:
>>> Well, yeah, that was obvious ;) The question is, how much do we prefer
>>> the more elegant method? ;)
>
>> If we go the new type route, do we need it to have an implicit cast to
>> text, for backwards compatibility?
>
> I'd argue not. Probably all existing uses are just selecting the
> function value. What comes back to the client will just be the text
> form anyway.
That's certainly the only thing I've seen.
> I'm of the opinion that a new type isn't worth the work, myself,
> but it would mostly be up to whoever was doing the work.
Fair enough - at least enough people have said it won't be rejected
because it's done as a function rather than a datatype - so that seems
like the easiest way to proceed.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
