Tom Lane wrote:
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes:
Actually, I'm think this whole automatic creation of a shell-type a bit
silly anyway. Why not simply solve the problem directly like so:
CREATE TYPE complex AS SHELL;
One of the unwritten consequences of the way that it works now is that
only superusers can "clutter the catalogs" with shell types.
I suppose we could restrict this variant to superusers, at least initially.
[snip]
Having said that, I agree that this seems conceptually cleaner, though
I'm not sure we could ever get rid of the old way because of backward
compatibility issues.
They are not mutually exclusive, are they? I too like Martijn's suggestion.
cheers
andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
