I wrote:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> writes:
>> There was a problem just with anyrange type. This last version looks
>> perfect.
> If you think that "matching polymorphic types" is too vague, I'm
> not sure there's much daylight between there and spelling it out
> in full as this latest patch does. "anyrange is the only problem"
> might be a tenable viewpoint today, but once this patchset goes
> in there's going to be much more scope for confusion about which
> arguments potentially match a polymorphic result.
On further reflection it seems like that's actually a fairly convincing
argument for going with the more-verbose style. Hence, I pushed 0001
that way.
The cfbot will be unhappy at this point, but I need to rebase the
main patch again ...
regards, tom lane
