On 10/04/12 21:27, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Urbański<wulczer@wulczer.org> writes:
>> Yes, that would be ideal, even though not backwards-compatible.
>> Back-patching is out of the question, but do we want to change trigger
>> functions to receive dictionaries in NEW?
>
> Hm, I was not thinking of this as being trigger-specific, but more a
> general principle that composite columns of tuples ought to be handled
> in a recursive fashion.
Sure, that would be the way.
>> If so, should this be 9.2 material, or just a TODO?
>
> If it can be done quickly and with not much risk, I'd vote for
> squeezing it into 9.2, because it seems to me to be a clear bug that the
> two directions are not handled consistently. If you don't have time for
> it now or you don't think it would be a small/safe patch, we'd better
> just put it on TODO.
I'll see if making the conversion function recursive is easy and
independently whip up a patch to check for strings and routes them
through InputFunctionCall, for back-patching purposes.
Cheers,
Jan
