| From: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: dblink: add polymorphic functions. |
| Date: | 2015-07-29 14:43:18 |
| Message-ID: | CADkLM=e3tz4ap0n2HnzKApGfCQ2zB9Bft+mgFaUd_G+L8AKzbA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 3:48 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> On 07/18/2015 01:32 AM, Corey Huinker wrote:
>
>> So this patch would result in less C code while still adding 3 new
>> functions. Can anyone think of why that wouldn't be the best way to go?
>>
>
> Let's pursue the "CAST(srf() AS row_rtype)" syntax that Joe suggested
> upthread (
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/559A9643.9070409@joeconway.com) For
> some reason, the discussion went on around the details of the submitted
> patch after that, even though everyone seemed to prefer the CAST() syntax.
>
> - Heikki
>
>
I'm all for adding that syntax, but it wouldn't be useful for my purposes
unless row_rtype could be a variable, and my understanding is that it can't.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-07-29 14:46:42 | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-07-29 14:38:19 | Re: upgrade failure from 9.5 to head |