Re: Better support for whole-row operations and composite

Tom Lane wrote:

>We have a number of issues revolving around the fact that composite types
>(row types) aren't first-class objects.  I think it's past time to fix
>that.  Here are some notes about doing it.  I am not sure all these ideas
>are fully-baked ... comments appreciated.
>
>  
>
[snip]

>Only named composite types, not RECORD, will be allowed to be used as
>table column types.  
>
[snip]

Interesting. I'm slightly curious to know if there's an external driver 
for this.

Will this apply recursively (an a has a b which has an array of c's)? 
Are there indexing implications? Could one index on a subfield?

cheers

andrew