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.
maybe "supertype". It is one char shorter .. somewhere is term "supperclass, ..."
In Czech language this term is short, "nadtyp", but probably it is not acceptable :)
