| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Typed table DDL loose ends |
| Date: | 2011-04-18 15:09:20 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTinuUe7kO8Ufv8g=nK_BP_a-bV=esQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:20:21AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I tweaked the comments accordingly, and also reverted your change to
>> the error message, because I don't want to introduce new terminology
>> here that we're not using anywhere else.
>
> FWIW, the term "stand-alone composite type" appears twice in our documentation.
Hmm, OK. Anyone else have an opinion on the relative merits of:
ERROR: type stuff is not a composite type
vs.
ERROR: type stuff is not a stand-alone composite type
The intent of adding "stand-alone" was, I believe, to clarify that it
has to be a CREATE TYPE stuff AS ... type, not just a row type (that
is, naturally, composite, in some less-pure sense). I'm not sure
whether the extra word actually makes it more clear, though.
Opinions? Suggestions?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-04-18 15:10:22 | Re: JDBC connections to 9.1 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-04-18 14:57:07 | Re: JDBC connections to 9.1 |