Randall Lucas <rlucas(at)tercent(dot)com> writes:
> Still, this would fail in a nested situation because it wouldn't
> recurse (if col1 of the compound type were another compound type,
> ferinstance), as would your suggestion above. It might be worthwhile
> to allow choosing to use the default ROW comparison operator at
> composite type creation (which would provide a more elegant solution to
> nested situations).
You are incorrectly supposing that there *is* such an animal as a
default row comparison operator --- actually, ROW() = ROW() is expanded
at parse time into field-by-field comparisons. This is usually a good
thing since it gives the planner more flexibility.
regards, tom lane