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