| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Artur Zakirov <a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: plpgsql - DECLARE - cannot to use %TYPE or %ROWTYPE for composite types |
| Date: | 2016-03-16 15:46:15 |
| Message-ID: | 56E97FC7.1040405@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-03-16 15:48:10 | Re: Show dropped users' backends in pg_stat_activity |
| Previous Message | David Steele | 2016-03-16 15:42:05 | Re: Sequence Access Method WIP |