Re: updated WIP: arrays of composites

Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
>
>> * I'm a bit concerned about dump order. If a user wants to create
>> types named "foo" and "_foo", he can, but it will only work if he
>> makes "_foo" first --- else the derived type for foo is in the way.
>> Since pg_dump has no clue about that constraint, it might easily
>> dump "foo" first leading to an unrestorable dump. The most usable
>> solution would be to auto-rename previously created array types,
>> but I dunno how implementable that would be.
>>
>
> BTW, why exactly do we need array types to have names at all? The only
> user-visible way to refer to these types is always by foo[] isn't it?
>
>

I think you can use the _foo name, but it would certainly be an odd
thing to do.

I'd be happy to get rid of the name, or at least make it something very
unlikely indeed, but Tom didn't want to move too far from our present
naming convention. I am now wondering if we shouldn't at lest append
_arr or some such to the array type name, similarly to what we do for
generated sequence and index names.

cheers

andrew