On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 8:01 AM, Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Merlin Moncure wrote: >> Well, new features that have a perfectly acceptable and usable >> workaround typically have a fairly low priority of fixing :-) >> >> Since tables are basically types, I'm not sure what the difference is >> between tables and composite types (meaning, why do we have the >> composite type syntax at all?) I'm not sure if this came up during >> the design discussion or not. > > Your "workaround" involves have a redundant table that you don't ever intend > to populate.
Redundant how? Since tables and types exist in the same namespace (can't have table and type in the same schema with the same name), a table is just a type with storage. If that's a big deal, remove the insert priv... I like to keep the table based types I use in a special schema, like 'types' anyways. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
