On Sep 9, 2009, at 6:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
1. Is a completely unconstrained argument type (ie "any") of any real
use to PL functions, and if so how can we expose that usefulness?
The only clear thing to do with such an argument is IS NULL/IS NOT
NULL
tests, which might or might not be worth the trouble.
If you can pass an "any" to pg_typeof(), it's possible for functions
to determine the types of arguments themselves and then to decide what
to do with them (cast, etc.). I can see no reason not to give this
ability to function authors, can you?
2. Is there any use for arguments with type constraints not covered
by the existing ANYFOO rules, and if so what do we add for that?
One comment on point 2 is that it was foreseen from the beginning
that there would be need for ANYELEMENT2 etc, and I'm actually rather
surprised that we've gone this long without adding them. Alvaro made
a good point about not wanting to multiply the various hard-wired
OID references, but perhaps some judicious code refactoring could
prevent a notational disaster.
The difference between allowing ANYELEMENT2, ANYELEMENT3, ANYELEMENT .
++$i and allowing "any" escapes me.
Best,
David
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
