From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
cc: d <dchuck@yurfish.com>,
        PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: ERROR: type of parameter 1 (fruit2) does not match that when
 preparing the plan (fruit1)
In-reply-to: 
 <CAKFQuwbjOSOxwLPWFrVGd_c3fY8GLsezr7Zs1OpDVN8HRABR1g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20220430162319.67986afa@metairie.davudsplace.net>
 <CAKFQuwaZR0F4FL0RoP2sQ2y9v3V5GCZh9UofUmeS9BFPtsgp=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <1683365.1651424937@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAKFQuwbjOSOxwLPWFrVGd_c3fY8GLsezr7Zs1OpDVN8HRABR1g@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
	message dated "Sun, 01 May 2022 12:34:43 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1699526.1651434410.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sun, 01 May 2022 15:46:50 -0400
Message-ID: <1699527.1651434410@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1699527.1651434410%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, May 1, 2022 at 10:08 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Maybe we could improve this situation by treating a "record" parameter
>> as polymorphic, though that might cause some odd inconsistencies with
>> plpgsql's historical treatment of "record" local variables.

> The extent of needing to treat "record" as polymorphic-like seems like it
> would be limited to resolve_polymorphic_argtype in funcapi.c.  Namely, in
> computing the hash key for the compiled hash entry for the function.
> Similar to how we append the trigger oid in compute_function_hashkey in
> pl.compile (which ultimately calls the former) so trigger invocations
> become per-table.

I'm hesitant to touch funcapi.c for this; the scope of potential
side-effects becomes enormous as soon as you do.

			regards, tom lane