I wrote:
> "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
>> select foo from foo order by foo;
>> ERROR: could not identify an ordering operator for type foo
> Yeah, these are because of the incomplete handling of named record
> types. I'm not sure how far we want to go in that direction.
On looking closer, all these cases fail because I forgot to teach
IsBinaryCoercible() that any composite type should be considered
binary-coercible to RECORD. Which is clearly sensible.
I'm inclined to apply the patch with binary-coercibility adjustments
and not try to turn RECORD or RECORD[] into full-fledged polymorphic
types. It's not immediately clear what the use of that would be
anyway.
regards, tom lane
