Tom Lane wrote:
>We have a number of issues revolving around the fact that composite types
>(row types) aren't first-class objects. I think it's past time to fix
>that. Here are some notes about doing it. I am not sure all these ideas
>are fully-baked ... comments appreciated.
>
>
>
[snip]
>Only named composite types, not RECORD, will be allowed to be used as
>table column types.
>
[snip]
Interesting. I'm slightly curious to know if there's an external driver
for this.
Will this apply recursively (an a has a b which has an array of c's)?
Are there indexing implications? Could one index on a subfield?
cheers
andrew
