Re: writing a MIN(RECORD) aggregate

"Sam Mason" <sam@samason.me.uk> writes:

> The reason for the sub-select is only because SQL doesn't provide any
> other way to name expressions.  Hum, or at least this should work...
> There doesn't seem to be any nice way of getting fields out of a record!
>
> If I really want to do this, it's going to turn into quite an overhaul
> of record handling in PG.  It would also remove the nice syntactic trick
> that a.b identifies the field "b" from table "a", and s.a.b means that
> the above is in schema "s".

Yeah, to disambiguate it you have to use (r).i


--  Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production
Tuning