On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:20:21AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> I tweaked the comments accordingly, and also reverted your change to >> the error message, because I don't want to introduce new terminology >> here that we're not using anywhere else. > > FWIW, the term "stand-alone composite type" appears twice in our > documentation.
Hmm, OK. Anyone else have an opinion on the relative merits of: ERROR: type stuff is not a composite type vs. ERROR: type stuff is not a stand-alone composite type The intent of adding "stand-alone" was, I believe, to clarify that it has to be a CREATE TYPE stuff AS ... type, not just a row type (that is, naturally, composite, in some less-pure sense). I'm not sure whether the extra word actually makes it more clear, though. Opinions? Suggestions? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
