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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to