Re: type conversion discussion
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: type conversion discussion |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6230.958707973@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: type conversion discussion (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: type conversion discussion
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: >> I don't think so. The lattice property only says that the set A has a >> glb within the equivalence class. AFAICT it doesn't promise that the >> glb will be >= Q, so you can't necessarily use the glb as the function >> to call. > Since all functions in A are >=Q by definition, Q is at least _a_ lower > bound on A. The glb(A) is also a lower bound on A, and since it's the > greatest it must also be >=Q. No, you're not catching my point. glb(A) is the greatest lower bound *within the set of available functions*. Q, the requested call signature, is *not* in that set (if it were then we'd not have any ambiguity to resolve, because there's an exact match). The fact that the set of available functions forms a lattice gives you no guarantee whatever that glb(A) >= Q, because Q is not constrained by the lattice property. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: