Re: [HACKERS] Re: type coersion (was OR clause status)

> The first thing I want to try is to substitute the operator for types
> which are known to be binary-compatible and do not have their own index
> defined. The next step would be to substitute an operator _and_ insert
> an explicit type conversion using a function call (which may not work
> yet for other reasons). Don't know where Vadim's PARAM_EXEC node comes
> in, but if it does it might be around here.
>
> > ... if you can, do a fresh cvs update if you can, because the code is
> > a little cleaner now in that area.  Particularly, the op_class()
> > parameters were badly named, causing me confusion.
>
> OK. Does the current source tree compile now? Haven't had much time to
> look at it the last few days, but will start poking at it this evening a
> bit.

Yep.  Only been down for a few hours in the past month, at least for me.
I am working on another huge patch, but it will be tested before
install, of course.

--
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)