On 03/16/2016 09:38 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > 2016-03-16 16:50 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com > <mailto:pavel.steh...@gmail.com>>: > 2016-03-16 16:46 GMT+01:00 Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com > <mailto: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. > > I played with the reduced patch, and the benefit without all other > things is negligible. It should be rejected.
Ok, thanks -- done. Joe -- Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
Description: OpenPGP digital signature