2016-03-16 16:50 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com>: > > > 2016-03-16 16:46 GMT+01:00 Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com>: > >> On 03/15/2016 05:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> > In short, I think we should reject this implementation and instead try >> > to implement the type operators we want in the core grammar's Typename >> > production, from which plpgsql will pick it up automatically. That is >> > going to require some other syntax than this. As I said, I'm not >> > particularly pushing the function-like syntax I wrote upthread; but >> > I want to see something that is capable of supporting all those features >> > and can be extended later if we think of other type operators we want. >> >> +1 >> >> Anyone want to argue against changing the status of this to Rejected or >> at least Returned with feedback? >> > > I would to reduce this patch to fix row type issue. There is not any > disagreement. I'll send reduced patch today. > > Any other functionality is not 9.6 topic. >
I played with the reduced patch, and the benefit without all other things is negligible. It should be rejected. Regards Pavel > > Regards > > Pavel > > >> Joe >> >> -- >> Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com >> PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises >> Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development >> >> >
