Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The above didn't work, but if I understand correctly what that function > is intended to do, it seemed very broken. Basically this code: > nanswers = 1; > for (i = 0; i < nargs; i++) > { > nanswers *= (arginh[i].nsupers + 2); > cur[i] = 0; > } > for 24 arguments means 2^24 answers, even when there are no superclasses.
Right, but it should be (arginh[i].nsupers + 1) at each position. It's not quite as broken as you think. What the code is trying to do is consider superclasses as substitute argument types at each position where there is a complex type. But it should consider that in combination with both original argument types and superclasses at each other position. Your proposed patch is like asserting that *all* argument positions must be promoted if any are. The part I think we want to get rid of is the insertion of zero as an additional considered possibility at each position. That's certainly not appropriate any longer for scalar types, and I don't think it is appropriate for complex types either, in view of the fact that we got rid of OPAQUE as a wildcard type in 7.3. I'll put in a patch this afternoon. And try to improve the comments while I'm at it ... regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]