On 09/28/2017 01:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I do think that treating a function returning a domain-over-composite >> differently from one returning a base composite is a POLA. We'd be very >> hard put to explain the reasons for it to an end user. > Do you have any thoughts about how we ought to resolve that? > >
Not offhand. Maybe we need to revisit the decision not to modify the executor at all. Obviously that would make the patch a good deal more invasive ;-( One thought I had was that we could invent a new return type of TYPEFUNC_DOMAIN_COMPOSITE so there would be less danger of a PL just treating it as an unconstrained base type as it might do if it saw TYPEFUNC_COMPOSITE. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have a strong suspicion that of we leave it like this now we'll regret it in the future. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
