Re: Typed tables

From: Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Typed tables
Date: 2010-01-12 14:43:53
Message-ID: 4B4C8AA9.5030700@esilo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>
> 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.
>

I never asked for anything to be removed nor do I sneer :) Honestly, I
was only trying to understand why it existed.

--
Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts
http://www.esilo.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-01-12 14:44:55 Re: pg_dump sort order for functions
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-01-12 14:39:50 Re: Streaming replication status