On 03/16/2016 09:38 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2016-03-16 16:50 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com
> <mailto:pavel.stehule@gmail.com>>:
> 2016-03-16 16:46 GMT+01:00 Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com
> <mailto:mail@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.
Ok, thanks -- done.
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development