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. Regards Pavel > Joe > > -- > Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com > PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises > Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development > >
