Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I found an interesting idea to have some basic functions and operators for
> record type (similar to json, jsonb or hstore).
I think this is a pretty bad idea, because there's no way to know what
data type the result of -> should be. "Smash it all to text" is a hack,
not a solution --- and if you find that hack satisfactory, you might as
well be using json or hstore.
Most of the other things you mention are predicated on the assumption
that the field set will vary from one value to the next, which again
seems more like something you'd do with json or hstore than with SQL
composites.
regards, tom lane