On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 07:01:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "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. > But I was actually wondering about something beyond that: should we > have the equivalent of the polymorphic-type behaviors for > composites? That would mean rules along the line of "all records > mentioned in the call and result are the same composite type" and > "record[] means the array type corresponding to whichever type > record is".
+1 :) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
