From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>
cc: mjurca@centrum.cz, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #17610: Use of multiple composite types incompatible with
 record-typed function parameter
In-reply-to: 
 <MEYP282MB16698A279FEBE7967E5B299DB6439@MEYP282MB1669.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <17610-fb1eef75bf6c2364@postgresql.org>
 <MEYP282MB16693A87D77FF13C23E45EA4B6409@MEYP282MB1669.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <4048043.1662653834@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4102534.1662662207@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <MEYP282MB16698A279FEBE7967E5B299DB6439@MEYP282MB1669.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Comments: In-reply-to Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>
	message dated "Fri, 09 Sep 2022 09:07:04 +0800"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3841529.1663349282.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 13:28:02 -0400
Message-ID: <3841530.1663349282@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3841530.1663349282%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2022 at 02:36, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> So really the way we ought to fix this is to upgrade the parser
>> APIs so that plpgsql could deal with "$1.f1" as a unit.  But
>> that seems like a lot of work, and it would certainly not be
>> back-patchable.

> Tested and looks good!

After letting this bake awhile, I still haven't thought of a better
idea.  Also, even if we wanted to invest the effort to make "$1.f1"
an integrated construct, I think you could still easily break it,
say with syntax like "($1).f1".  The variant "(arg).f1" would be
problematic too without this change.

Hence, pushed as-is.

			regards, tom lane