On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 7:21 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Anyway I think the names need to be any-something.
To me, that seems unnecessarily rigid. Not a bad idea if we can come up with something that is otherwise acceptable. But all of your suggestions sound worse than Pavel's proposal, so...
I implemented commontypenonarray, and commontyperange types. Now, a SQL functions are supported too.
The naming is same - I had not a better idea. But it can be changed without any problems, if somebody come with some more acceptable.
I don't think so the name is too important. The polymorphic types are important, interesting for extension's developers what is small group of Postgres users.
And personally, I think so commontype and commontypearray are good enough for not native speakers like me. But I am opened any variant - I think so this functionality is interesting
and partially coverage one gap in our implementation of polymorphic types.
