On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
>>> select foo from foo order by foo;
>>> ERROR: could not identify an ordering operator for type foo
>
>> Yeah, these are because of the incomplete handling of named record
>> types. I'm not sure how far we want to go in that direction.
>
> On looking closer, all these cases fail because I forgot to teach
> IsBinaryCoercible() that any composite type should be considered
> binary-coercible to RECORD. Which is clearly sensible.
>
> I'm inclined to apply the patch with binary-coercibility adjustments
> and not try to turn RECORD or RECORD[] into full-fledged polymorphic
> types. It's not immediately clear what the use of that would be
> anyway.
...meaning, that you would not be able to create a function taking
generic 'record' as a parameter? In that case I agree...any chance of
getting an updated patch?
merlin