Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> writes: > One could theoretically construct a custom "type" that followed more > traditional semantics, but then you'd lose all the syntax... which I > suspect would make any such "type" all but unusable. The other problem > would be having it deal with any other data type, but at least there's > ways you can work around that for the most part.
Yeah. We've speculated a bit about allowing other datatypes to have access to the subscript syntax, which could be modeled as allowing 'a[b]' to be an overloadable operator. That seems possibly doable if someone wanted to put time into it. However, that still leaves a heck of a lot of functionality on the table, such as automatic creation of array types corresponding to new scalar types, not to mention the parser's understanding of "anyarray" vs "anyelement" polymorphism. I have no idea how we might make those things extensible. 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