Re: WITH RECURSIVE ... CYCLE in vanilla SQL: issues with arrays of rows

I wrote:
> "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
>> select foo from foo order by foo;
>> ERROR:  could not identify an ordering operator for type foo

> Yeah, these are because of the incomplete handling of named record
> types.  I'm not sure how far we want to go in that direction.

On looking closer, all these cases fail because I forgot to teach
IsBinaryCoercible() that any composite type should be considered
binary-coercible to RECORD.  Which is clearly sensible.

I'm inclined to apply the patch with binary-coercibility adjustments
and not try to turn RECORD or RECORD[] into full-fledged polymorphic
types.  It's not immediately clear what the use of that would be
anyway.
        regards, tom lane