On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 07:35:46PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I've obviously misunderstood the scope of the TODO because it appears > > that an INSERT into pg_type at creation time for compound types that > > looks something like the below would do it. What have I missed? > > There are a couple of issues. One is that we probably don't want > two pg_type entries for every single table.
Now that you mention it, I would want that if that's what it takes to get arrays for them. The long-term goal here is to make all of PostgreSQL's types play nicely together. I'm guessing that SETOF will eventually be a way to describe a collection because MULTISET is in SQL:2003. > Will you be satisfied if only CREATE TYPE AS ... makes an array > type? The other is that, at least at the time they were written, > the array support routines couldn't handle composite array values. > Things might or might not be easier today; I don't think we had > record_in and record_out in their current form then. OK. What about pg_depend? Cheers, D -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
