On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 5:15 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 21:17 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: >> Not sure I see why this is good. Why is issuing CREATE TYPE so much >> easier than using CREATE TABLE? Is it worth the extra syntax and code to >> support it? Can we do anything additional as a result of this? > > These are tools to improve database design in particular situations. > Nobody really *needs* this, but then again, you don't really need CREATE > TYPE for composite types in the first place. Using CREATE TABLE instead > of CREATE TYPE creates a bunch of extra things you don't need. For > example, files are created, VACUUM and ANALYZE have to keep checking the > table, backup tools think they have to back up the table, and you have > to check that no one actually inserts anything into the table.
you also get the ability to alter the type though, which at present outweighs the disadvantages in most cases (IMO). I happen to be a fan of your proposal...mainly because it highlights the highly under-appreciated composite type handling of the database. I especially am excited about getting 'ALTER TYPE' in the future :-). Do you think that we will ever able to apply constraints to composite type that will be enforced on a cast? merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers