On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Rikard Pavelic
<rikard.pavelic@zg.htnet.hr> wrote:
> On 18.9.2010 11:36, Arjen Nienhuis wrote:
>> I'm not sure what you want but maybe it's this:
>>
>>
>> => select * from (select t from t) sq;
>> t
>> -------
>> (1,x)
>> (1 row)
>>
>> => select (sq.t).* from (select t from t) sq;
>> a | b
>> ---+---
>> 1 | x
>> (1 row)
>>
>>
>
> I know how to expand record to type or set by hand. That's not the issue.
> I'm just trying to understand if changing type of record when alias is
> different is intentional decision or unintentional.
> Because, if it's unintentional, I would like it to get fixed
> (I guess I'll have to take a look at the code if nobody answers me).
>
> I don't see any benefit in loosing type info because variable alias
> don't match.
It's not the alias. Subqueries are typed as "record". I think thats
because there is little difference between these:
(SELECT * FROM t)
(SELECT a, b FROM t)
(SELECT a + 1, b FROM t)
(SELECT 1, b FROM t)
Which of these should have type "t"?
You need to do this:
SELECT x FROM t x;