I think it buys the same as SERIAL does for sequences. Is it likely to have more than one function using a complex type like that? If not, then allowing it's creation (not enforcing) could be useful.
On Fri, 2002-08-09 at 19:03, Joe Conway wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Joe Conway writes: > >>3. Modify CREATE FUNCTION to allow the implicit creation of a dependent > >> composite type, e.g.: > > > > Forgive this blunt question, but: Why? > > Now's a *great* time for a blunt question because I haven't started > actively working on this yet. Much better than after I'm done. ;-) > > > > Of course I can see the answer, it's convenient, but wouldn't the system > > be more consistent overall if all functions and types are declared > > explicitly? > > > > And of couse you are correct. It is almost purely convenience. My > reasoning was this: if I am creating a function which returns a > composite type, then the fact that a named composite type exists is > superfluous to me. It would be more natural for me to do: > > CREATE FUNCTION foo() RETURNS SETOF (f1 int, f2 text); > > than to do: > > CREATE TYPE some_arbitrary_name AS (f1 int, f2 text); > CREATE FUNCTION foo() RETURNS SETOF some_arbitrary_name; > > But I admit it is only a "nice-to-have", not a "need-to-have". > > How do others feel? Do we want to be able to implicitly create a > composite type during function creation? Or is it unneeded bloat? > > I prefer the former, but don't have a strong argument against the latter. > > Joe > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
