| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Typed tables |
| Date: | 2010-01-12 14:00:39 |
| Message-ID: | 4B4C8087.8010202@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tis, 2010-01-12 at 08:05 -0500, Andrew Chernow wrote:
>
>> In practice, tables can be used for passing data around or storing it on disk.
>> So, I guess my question remains unanswered as to what the composite type offers
>> that a table doesn't; other than a name that better suits the task.
>>
>
> The arguments of functions are types, not tables. So you need types if
> you want to use functions.
>
>
>
What is the point of this discussion? We're not going to remove the
facility for composite types, regardless of whether or not some people
regard them as unnecessary. And "a name that better suits the task" is
not to be sneered at anyway.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-01-12 14:13:30 | Re: Streaming replication status |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-12 13:59:01 | Re: Streaming replication status |