Re: updated WIP: arrays of composites

Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>
>> The attached version removes all the places we had NAMEDATALEN - 2
>> restrictions on object names. If there's no objection I will commit this
>> shortly, as I think it now does all the previously agreed things.
>>
>
> It needs some work yet, but I'll go over it and commit it.
>
> BTW, just idly looking at this, I'm wondering whether we couldn't
> now support arrays of domains too.  If record_in/record_out work for
> array elements, why wouldn't domain_in/domain_out?
>
>
>

Good question. I'm all in favor of doing that. Presumably we would not
in the case of a domain of an array type?

cheers

andrew