Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I do have a plan B if people don't want to rename the operators, though.
>> It looks to me like we could eliminate the conflict if we invented a new
>> polymorphic pseudotype called "anynonarray" or some such, which would
>> act like anyelement *except* it would not match an array.
>> ...
>> I was a bit hesitant to propose this since I couldn't immediately think
>> of any other use-case for such a pseudotype. It's not a huge amount of
>> added code (cf. anyenum) but it's definitely a visible wart on the type
>> system. Comments?
> On the contrary, I would think that it fits nicely to "close the loop"
> on the anyarray/anyelement feature set.
OK, I'll go code this up and verify that it behaves like I think it will...
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
