"Sam Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The reason for the sub-select is only because SQL doesn't provide any > other way to name expressions. Hum, or at least this should work... > There doesn't seem to be any nice way of getting fields out of a record! > > If I really want to do this, it's going to turn into quite an overhaul > of record handling in PG. It would also remove the nice syntactic trick > that a.b identifies the field "b" from table "a", and s.a.b means that > the above is in schema "s".
Yeah, to disambiguate it you have to use (r).i -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
