Re: How hard would it be to support LIKE in return declaration of generic record function calls ?

Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2012/5/3 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> No, it isn't, at least not if you have any ambition to support array
>> types for instance; to say nothing of types whose standard names are
>> keywords, multiple words, etc.

> we can identify a position "anytypename" before raising error - it can
> be similar to current identification of PL/pgSQL variables inside
> expression. Probably it is too complex for this issue :(

[ shrug ... ] Feel free to spend time that way if you want to, but
I'm entirely confident that you won't come out with anything except
an ugly, unmaintainable, incomplete kluge.

> Maybe some keyword can help to us. What do you think about new
> operator TYPE that can returns regtype value and can be used together
> with polymorphic functions.

Doesn't have any more attraction for me than the proposed LIKE
extension; that will have the same results and it's at least traceable
to SQL-standard notations.

regards, tom lane