From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: unsupportable composite type partition keys
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+HiwqFUzjfj9HEsJtYWcr1SgQ_=iCAvQ=O2Sx6aQxoDu4OiHw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CA+HiwqFUzjfj9HEsJtYWcr1SgQ_=iCAvQ=O2Sx6aQxoDu4OiHw@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
	message dated "Tue, 17 Dec 2019 18:03:42 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <5360.1576602769.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 12:12:49 -0500
Message-ID: <5361.1576602769@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> writes:
> It seems to me that we currently allow expressions that are anonymous
> and self-referencing composite type records as partition key, but
> shouldn't.  Allowing them leads to this:

Hm.  Seems like the restrictions here ought to be just about the same
as on index columns, no?  That is, it should be roughly a test like
"no pseudo-types".  The check you're proposing seems awfully specific,
and I doubt that the equivalent check in CREATE INDEX looks the same.
(But I didn't go look ... I might be wrong.)

			regards, tom lane