<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br /><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 3:48 AM, Heikki
Linnakangas<span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hlinnaka@iki.fi" target="_blank">hlinnaka@iki.fi</a>></span>
wrote:<br/><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span
class="">On07/18/2015 01:32 AM, Corey Huinker wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> So this patch would result in less C code while still adding 3 new<br
/>functions. Can anyone think of why that wouldn't be the best way to go?<br /></blockquote><br /></span> Let's pursue
the"CAST(srf() AS row_rtype)" syntax that Joe suggested upthread (<a
href="http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/559A9643.9070409@joeconway.com"rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/559A9643.9070409@joeconway.com</a>).For some reason, the
discussionwent on around the details of the submitted patch after that, even though everyone seemed to prefer the
CAST()syntax.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br /><br /> - Heikki<br /><br
/></font></span></blockquote></div><br/></div><div class="gmail_extra">I'm all for adding that syntax, but it wouldn't
beuseful for my purposes unless row_rtype could be a variable, and my understanding is that it can't.</div><div
class="gmail_extra"><br/></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br /></div></div>