"Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> 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.
> ...meaning, that you would not be able to create a function taking
> generic 'record' as a parameter?
Well, you've never been able to do that, although for many of the PLs
there doesn't seem to be any very fundamental reason why not. But
I was actually wondering about something beyond that: should we have the
equivalent of the polymorphic-type behaviors for composites? That would
mean rules along the line of "all records mentioned in the call and
result are the same composite type" and "record[] means the array type
corresponding to whichever type record is".
We don't seem to need these things in order to solve the recursion cycle
detection problem, so I'm not very excited about pursuing the line of
thought any further right now.
> In that case I agree...any chance of
> getting an updated patch?
See CVS HEAD ...
regards, tom lane