Tom Lane escribió: > "Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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? > > Well, you've never been able to do that, although for many of the PLs > there doesn't seem to be any very fundamental reason why not.
Yeah, it seems an arbitrary restriction for no very good reason. When I was working on PL/php (years ago) I tried to make it work because I found it useful for some use case I was trying, but couldn't. I don't remember the details (and PL/php has been pretty much abandoned since then anyway.) -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
