| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: stand-alone composite types |
| Date: | 2002-08-10 00:26:30 |
| Message-ID: | 3D545DB6.6C3FF8A1@fourpalms.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> That's what I was thinking. In cases where you want to use the type for
> several functions, use CREATE TYPE. If you only need the type for one
> function, let the function creation process manage it for you.
It would be nice then to have some mechanism for converting the
"automatic type" to a named type which could be used elsewhere.
Otherwise one would need to garbage collect the separate stuff later,
which would probably go into the "not so convenient" category of
features...
- Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2002-08-10 00:36:46 | Re: Proposal: stand-alone composite types |
| Previous Message | Scott Shattuck | 2002-08-09 23:59:31 | strange performance anomalies |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2002-08-10 00:36:46 | Re: Proposal: stand-alone composite types |
| Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2002-08-09 23:46:28 | Re: Proposal: stand-alone composite types |