
> > I did not mean visible, I meant useable, like in
> > 	create function xx(any) returns text ...;
> > If that is possible, what is the difference to opaque ?
> 
> "any" will have the same behavior that "opaque" used to have, yes.

Ok, now I vote, that you don't implement "any" and use "opaque".
I don't think we want two types that do the same thing.
Is it that you like the name "any" more than "opaque" ?
I am confused.

Andreas

Wed, 21 Aug 2002 19:39:12 +0200
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>
Re: @(#) Mordred Labs advisory 0x0001: Buffer overflow in 
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at> writes:
> Ok, now I vote, that you don't implement "any" and use "opaque".
> I don't think we want two types that do the same thing.
> Is it that you like the name "any" more than "opaque" ?

No, it's that I want to deprecate "opaque" so that we can catch old
uses that should not be there anymore.  If you look at your code and
you decide that "any" is the correct semantics, then fine: change
"opaque" to "any" and the warnings will go away.  But relatively few
existing uses of "opaque" really mean "any", and I don't want the
people who are using "opaque" to mean "cstring", "trigger", etc
to keep using "opaque" for those other purposes.  The idea here is
to force a security review.

			regards, tom lane

Thu, 22 Aug 2002 00:03:09 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: @(#) Mordred Labs advisory 0x0001: Buffer overflow in 