On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 09:58 -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Jun 30, 2011, at 9:29 AM, Jeff Davis wrote: > > > Right. In that respect, it's more like a record type: many possible > > record types exist, but you only define the ones you want. > > Well, okay. How is this same problem handled for RECORD types, then?
What problem, exactly? For a given list of subtypes, there is only one valid record type. Also, record is not a great example. The implementation uses at least one pretty horrible hack. Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers