Tom Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Regarding the type system understanding ANYENUM, most of the type system > treats ANYENUM identically to ANYELEMENT, the only parts that really > need to understand it are the bits that try to tie down concrete types.
The reason I'm feeling annoyed with ANYfoo stuff today is that yesterday I had to put a special hack for ANYARRAY into the ri_triggers code, which you'd think would have no concern with it. But perhaps this is just an indication that we need to refactor the code in parse_coerce.c. (The problem in ri_triggers is that it uses find_coercion_pathway() which does not concern itself with ANYfoo types.) Anyway, objection withdrawn --- I just thought it seemed a good idea to question whether we were adding a frammish we didn't really need. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster