On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I think it wouldn't take too much code to defend against this in > transformArrayExpr, but I'm a tad worried about whether there are > similar cases elsewhere. The generic problem is that we suppose that > different values are compatible if they have the same type OID, but > for RECORD types that's really not true.
We've argued about this before: it's not really true for array types either. A one-dimensional array is not the same type as a two-dimensional array, but we treat it that way because bloating pg_type by a factor of seven is even less appealing than bloating it by a factor of two. And then there are other kinds of types people might want to define: hashes, sets, functions, etc. This shoe is going to rub for so long as we keep wearing it. Nevertheless, there's not much hope of better than a localized fix for this particular bug. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
