Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 07/13/2017 03:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Attached is a draft patch that allows domains over composite types.
>> I think it's probably complete on its own terms, but there are some
>> questions around behavior of functions returning domain-over-composite
>> that could use discussion, and some of the PLs need some follow-on work.
> This is a pretty nice patch, and very small indeed all things
> considered. From a code point of view I have no criticism, although
> maybe we need to be a bit more emphatic in the header file comments
> about the unwisdom of using get_expr_result_tupdesc().
Thanks for reviewing!
> I do think that treating a function returning a domain-over-composite
> differently from one returning a base composite is a POLA. We'd be very
> hard put to explain the reasons for it to an end user.
Do you have any thoughts about how we ought to resolve that?
> I also think we shouldn't commit this until we have accompanying patches
> for the core PLs, at least for plpgsql but I bet there are things that
> should be fixed for the others too.
For my own part, I think it would be reasonable to commit the core patch
once we've resolved the question of what to do with the case of
function-in-FROM returning domain over composite. That's core parser
behavior so it should be part of the same patch. I think addressing
each PL separately in followon patches would be fine and would help to
avoid the giant-unreviewable-patch syndrome. It is important to get
all the related work done in one release cycle, but since we're just
starting v11 I'm not too worried about that.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers