Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> Nice work.  This is a cool unexpected step forward in functionality.

As recently as Thursday I didn't think this would get done for 7.5,
but I wanted to nibble off a few rough edges, and after a while there
weren't any left.

Or almost ... I just noticed that there's no convenient way to assign to
a subfield in UPDATE.  You can hack around it with something like
	UPDATE mytab SET myfield = ROW(myfield.a, newval, myfield.c)
but my goodness that's painful.  AFAICS the SQL99 spec gives license
to write
	UPDATE mytab SET myfield.b = newval
and I think I will look into making that happen tomorrow.  We already
have a solution in place for assigning to an array element, and this
doesn't seem much different.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: pgsql-server: Some preliminary documentation for composite-type stuff. at 2004-06-07 04:31:36 from Alvaro Herrera

pgsql-committers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2004-06-07 05:20:03
	Subject: Re: pgsql-server: Minor catalog cleanups for composite-type
Previous:	From: Christopher Kings-Lynne	Date: 2004-06-07 04:49:34
	Subject: Re: pgsql-server: Minor catalog cleanups for composite-type