Erm, forgot to attach the patch. Here it is.
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Alex Pilosov wrote:
> They just have things declared as RangeTblEntry *, and as long as they
> don't access type-specific fields, they are fine.
>
> > shown us the proposed changes, I really suspect that a union would be
> > cleaner, because it'd avoid ugliness in those places. Bear in mind that
> I have attached the diff of what I have now. Please take a look through
> it. Its not exactly done (only the parser and pieces of executor parts of
> "FROM CURSOR" are there, and I didn't attach gram.y diff because its just
> too ugly now), so its definitely not ready for application, but with these
> changes, it compiles and 'make check' goes through fine ;)