| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com |
| Cc: | peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Typed tables |
| Date: | 2009-11-09 02:42:09 |
| Message-ID: | 20091109.114209.21908966.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > This is useful in conjunction with PL/Proxy and similar RPC-type
> > setups. On the frontend/proxy instances you only create the type, and
> > the backend instances you create the storage for the type, and the
> > database system would give you a little support keeping them in sync.
> > Think interface and implementation.
>
> 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? Is this
> required by the standard or are we going past the standard?
+1. I'd like to hear from Peter why this is neccessary in the first
place.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-11-09 03:43:00 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-09 02:20:32 | Re: next CommitFest |