| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Typed tables |
| Date: | 2010-01-12 09:28:41 |
| Message-ID: | 1263288521.14170.1.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On mån, 2010-01-11 at 19:27 -0500, Andrew Chernow wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On mån, 2010-01-11 at 15:02 -0500, Andrew Chernow wrote:
> >> ISTM that the ultimate would be a 'create table (...._) without storage'
> >> (or some'm) and make 'create type' an alternate syntax for SQL
> >> conformance.
> >
> > I don't really understand the purpose of that.
> >
>
> What is the point of CREATE TYPE name AS () syntax? Why would one use create
> type when there is create table? Does it provide additional functionality I am
> unaware of or does it exist for comformance reasons?
Well, that is a very deep question. ;-) I suppose a concise answer
would be that types are for passing data around between functions, and
tables are for storing data on disk.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-01-12 09:30:41 | Re: mailing list archiver chewing patches |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-01-12 09:19:59 | Re: damage control mode |