Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On mån, 2010-01-11 at 19:27 -0500, Andrew Chernow wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
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.
What is the point of CREATE TYPE name AS () syntax? Why would one use create
type when there is create table? Does it provide additional functionality I am
unaware of or does it exist for comformance reasons?
Well, that is a very deep question. ;-) I suppose a concise answer
would be that types are for passing data around between functions, and
tables are for storing data on disk.
In practice, tables can be used for passing data around or storing it on disk.
So, I guess my question remains unanswered as to what the composite type offers
that a table doesn't; other than a name that better suits the task.
--
Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts
http://www.esilo.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
