2016-03-16 16:46 GMT+01:00 Joe Conway <m...@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.



> Joe
> --
> Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
> PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
> Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development

Reply via email to