Re: proposal: new polymorphic types - commontype and commontypearray
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: proposal: new polymorphic types - commontype and commontypearray |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 10080.1584550479@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: proposal: new polymorphic types - commontype and commontypearray (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: proposal: new polymorphic types - commontype and commontypearray
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes: > st 18. 3. 2020 v 17:14 odesílatel Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> napsal: >> However, it seems to me that this is inconsistent with the definition, >> namely that we resolve the common type the same way select_common_type() >> does, because select_common_type() will choose TEXT when given all-unknown >> inputs. So shouldn't we choose TEXT here? > It is difficult question. What I know, this issue is less than we can > expect, because almost all functions are called with typed parameters > (columns, variables). True, in actual production queries it's less likely that all the inputs would be literal constants. So this is mainly about surprise factor, or lack of it, for handwritten test queries. > Maybe users can implement own fallback behave with next custom function > create function foo2(text, text) returns bool > language sql as 'select $1 = $2'; No, because if you've got that alongside foo2(anycompatible, anycompatible) then your queries will fail due to both functions matching anything that's promotable to text. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: