Re: Proposal: stand-alone composite types

Tom Lane wrote:
> I was wondering about that too, in particular: what name are you going
> to give to the implicit type, and what if it conflicts?
>
> The already-accepted mechanism for anonymous function-result types for
> RECORD functions doesn't have that problem, because it has no need to
> create a catalog entry for the anonymous type. But I'm not sure what
> to do for record types that need to be present in the catalogs.

I was intending to use the same naming method used for SERIAL sequences.

But since the poll from this afternoon only showed weak support and
relatively strong objections, I'm OK with putting this aside for now. If
enough people seem interested once they start using table functions in
7.3, we can always resurrect this idea.

The most important changes (IMHO) were the "anonymous type" and "CREATE
TYPE x AS()" pieces anyway, so I'm happy where we are (at least once the
stand-alone composite type patch is applied ;) ). Onward and upward...

Joe