=?UTF-8?Q?Rafa=C5=82_Rzepecki?= <divided.m...@gmail.com> writes: > I'm pretty sure the original intent was to afford some extra checks so > that conditions such as "ROW(1, 2) IN ((ROW(3, 4), ROW(5, 6, 7))" > would get rejected at parsing time (CCing the original author; please > confirm).
No; the reason it was like that was that when that code was written, make_row_comparison_op was the only way to compare two row values at all. We didn't have record_eq and friends; nor did we have arrays of composites. > Since the restriction seems a rather arbitrary (at least I fail to see > any reason for it), it can be removed altogether (patch 0002, not > tested as well): This is reasonable as far as it goes, but I think it doesn't go far enough --- there's really no reason anymore to reject RowExprs as components of ScalarArrayOpExpr either. I've extended this patch some and committed it. Thanks for the report! regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs