On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
...meaning, that you would not be able to create a function taking generic 'record' as a parameter? In that case I agree...any chance of getting an updated patch? merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
