Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I'm starting to think that maybe we should separate the two cases after
>> all. If we force a downcast for ANYARRAY matching, we will fix the loss
>> of functionality induced by the bug #5717 patch, and it doesn't seem
>> like anyone has a serious objection to that. What to do for ANYELEMENT
>> seems to be a bit more controversial, and at least some of the proposals
>> aren't reasonable to do in 9.1 at this stage. Maybe we should just
>> leave ANYELEMENT as-is for the moment, and reconsider that issue later?
> If we haven't lost any functionality with respect to ANYELEMENT in
> 9.1, then I don't think we ought to try to improve/change/break it in
> 9.1 either. But I do think we need to do something about ANYARRAY
> matching, and your proposed fix seems pretty reasonable to me.
Yeah, the thread seems to have died off without anyone having a better
idea. I'll see about making this happen.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
