On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 01:33:56PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >David Fetter wrote:
> >>The first is in type_sanity, which basically doesn't understand
> >>that complex types now have array types associated with them and
> >>thinks they're orphan array types, so it's actually the test
> >>that's not right.
> >Hmm, I question the usefulness of automatically creating array
> >types for all relation types that are created -- the catalog bloat
> >seems a bit too much. An array of pg_autovacuum for example, does
> >that make sense?
> >I'm not sure what was the reaction to having an "CREATE TYPE foo
> >ARRAY OF bar" command of some kind? I think this was discussed but
> >not explicitely rejected, or was it?
> It certainly seems rather inconsistent to have array types
> autocreated for some types but not others.
This was my thought in the latest version of the patch.
> But unless we create them for all types then I think we need a
> command such as you suggest.
> How much bloat will this really be? If it's not used it won't get
> into the type cache. I find it hard to believe there will be any
> very significant performance effect.
So do I, but how would we check this?
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
---------------------------(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