On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 01:33:47PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:

> However, there are still some oddities. For example, a change to or
> removal of the base type affects the array type, but the array type
> can be directly operated on (e.g. alter type _aa set schema foo ).
> I'm inclined to say we should prevent direct operations on array
> types, and they should live or die by their parent types.
> Thoughts?

+1 on binding the array types tightly to the parent types.

David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778        AIM: dfetter666
                              Skype: davidfetter

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to