| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Typed tables |
| Date: | 2009-11-05 20:47:51 |
| Message-ID: | 1257454071.11856.22.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On tor, 2009-11-05 at 12:38 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > One thing I'm not sure of is whether to keep the implicit row type in
> > that case. That is, would the above command sequence still create a
> > "persons" type?
>
> Are you intending that the table and the original composite type are
> independent, or are still tied together --- ie, does ALTER TABLE ADD
> COLUMN or similar affect the composite type?
They need to stay tied together. But it's to be determined whether
ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN would work on those tables or whether there would
be some kind of ALTER TYPE.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-11-05 20:50:27 | Re: Typed tables |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-11-05 19:27:57 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |