Re: Proposal: stand-alone composite types

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: stand-alone composite types
Date: 2002-08-09 22:53:03
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0208092145110.927-100000@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Joe Conway writes:

> 3. Modify CREATE FUNCTION to allow the implicit creation of a dependent
> composite type, e.g.:

Forgive this blunt question, but: Why?

Of course I can see the answer, it's convenient, but wouldn't the system
be more consistent overall if all functions and types are declared
explicitly?

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joe Conway 2002-08-09 23:03:55 Re: Proposal: stand-alone composite types
Previous Message Greg Sabino Mullane 2002-08-09 22:50:10 Re: Proposal for psql wildcarding behavior w/schemas

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2002-08-09 22:56:21 Re: adding PGPASSWORDFILE to libpq
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-08-09 16:26:30 Re: stand-alone composite types patch (was [HACKERS] Proposal: