I wrote: > "Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> select foo from foo order by foo; >> ERROR: could not identify an ordering operator for type foo
> Yeah, these are because of the incomplete handling of named record > types. I'm not sure how far we want to go in that direction. On looking closer, all these cases fail because I forgot to teach IsBinaryCoercible() that any composite type should be considered binary-coercible to RECORD. Which is clearly sensible. I'm inclined to apply the patch with binary-coercibility adjustments and not try to turn RECORD or RECORD[] into full-fledged polymorphic types. It's not immediately clear what the use of that would be anyway. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers