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Anyway, objection withdrawn --- I just thought it seemed a good idea to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

Reply via email to