Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 4/7/15 4:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I suspect that that's only the tip of the iceberg. Remember the mess >> we had with implicit casts to text? And those only existed for a dozen >> or so types, not for everything. Every function or operator you define >> for "variant" is going to be a loaded gun just waiting to shoot your foot >> off, if you make all those casts implicit. > Yeah, that's why I avoided it. But that makes using it in a function a > real pain. :( I think this is a bit of a different scenario though, > because I don't see why you'd want to overload a function to accept both > variant and some other type. > Really what I want is for casting to variant to be a last-choice option, > and even then only for function calls, not operators. I believe that > would be safe, because then you'd have to explicitly be calling a > function, or explicitly doing something::variant = variant. Just out of curiosity, what's the point of this type at all, compared to "anyelement" and friends? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
