| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Typed tables |
| Date: | 2009-11-09 10:15:31 |
| Message-ID: | 1257761731.12918.7.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 21:17 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Not sure I see why this is good. Why is issuing CREATE TYPE so much
> easier than using CREATE TABLE? Is it worth the extra syntax and code to
> support it? Can we do anything additional as a result of this?
These are tools to improve database design in particular situations.
Nobody really *needs* this, but then again, you don't really need CREATE
TYPE for composite types in the first place. Using CREATE TABLE instead
of CREATE TYPE creates a bunch of extra things you don't need. For
example, files are created, VACUUM and ANALYZE have to keep checking the
table, backup tools think they have to back up the table, and you have
to check that no one actually inserts anything into the table.
> Is this required by the standard or are we going past the standard?
This is part of the SQL standard.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2009-11-09 10:32:29 | Re: more support for various frame types of window functions |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-11-09 10:09:09 | Re: more support for various frame types of window functions |