Re: [HACKERS] declarations of range-vs-element @ and @

2011-11-17 Thread Jeff Davis
On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 16:41 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: But what surprises me about this example is that I'd have expected the heuristic assume the unknown is of the same type as the other input to resolve it. Looking more closely, I see that we apply that heuristic in such a way that it works

Re: [HACKERS] declarations of range-vs-element @ and @

2011-11-17 Thread Tom Lane
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes: On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 16:41 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: I propose adding a step to func_select_candidate that tries to resolve things that way, ie, if all the known-type inputs have the same type, then try assuming that the unknown-type ones are of that type,

[HACKERS] declarations of range-vs-element @ and @

2011-11-16 Thread Tom Lane
Why do these use anynonarray rather than anyelement? Given that we support ranges of arrays (there's even a regression test), this seems a bogus limitation. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your

Re: [HACKERS] declarations of range-vs-element @ and @

2011-11-16 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: Why do these use anynonarray rather than anyelement? Given that we support ranges of arrays (there's even a regression test), this seems a bogus limitation. After experimenting with changing that, I see why you did it: some of the regression tests fail, eg, SELECT * FROM