On mån, 2010-01-11 at 15:02 -0500, Andrew Chernow wrote: > ISTM that the ultimate would be a 'create table (...._) without storage' > (or some'm) and make 'create type' an alternate syntax for SQL > conformance.
I don't really understand the purpose of that. > For various reasons, we've internally adopted using create > table for all composites and use a c-like naming convenstion of > appending _t to such beasts. Yes, I have a similar convention. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
