Jon Nelson <jnelson+pg...@jamponi.net> wrote: > If I saw this behavior ( a.b also meaning b(a) ) in another SQL > engine, I would consider it a thoroughly unintuitive wart I think the main reason it has been kept is the converse -- if you define a function "b" which takes record "a" as its only parameter, you have effectively created a "generated column" on any relation using record type "a". Kind of. It won't show up in the display of the relation's structure or in a SELECT *, and you can't use it in an unqualified reference; but you can use a.b to reference it, which can be convenient. It seems to me that this would be most useful in combination with the inheritance model of PostgreSQL (when used for modeling object hierarchies rather than partitioning). -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
