On 03/15/2016 05:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > In short, I think we should reject this implementation and instead try > to implement the type operators we want in the core grammar's Typename > production, from which plpgsql will pick it up automatically. That is > going to require some other syntax than this. As I said, I'm not > particularly pushing the function-like syntax I wrote upthread; but > I want to see something that is capable of supporting all those features > and can be extended later if we think of other type operators we want.
+1
Anyone want to argue against changing the status of this to Rejected or at least Returned with feedback?
I would to reduce this patch to fix row type issue. There is not any disagreement. I'll send reduced patch today.
Any other functionality is not 9.6 topic.
I played with the reduced patch, and the benefit without all other things is negligible. It should be rejected.
Regards
Pavel
Regards
Pavel
Joe
-- Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
