On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 06:42:14PM -0600, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > I'm still not happy about the idea of doing this for every relation > > (and doing it for sequences and indexes would be the height of > > wastefulness). How about we only do it for composite types? > > I'm not happy about that. I agree that indexes and sequences should not be > done, but can we please do plain table types? I would be OK if we skipped > catalog tables, if that would make you happier.
Two thoughts: 1. Make the array types only when someone actually uses them (create a table with it or something). 2. Make a command: CREATE TYPE ARRAY OF "foo"; The latter has the benefit of not restricting it to an arbitrary choice of types, you could accept both domains and composite types here. I don't think it's unreasonable to require people to predeclare their usage of array-of-compostite-type. Perhaps change the word "CREATE" to "DECLARE". I'm thinking of the explicit declaration of shell types as precedent here. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to > litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
