| From: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Florian Pflug" <fgp(dot)phlo(dot)org(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Martin Pihlak" <martin(dot)pihlak(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Pg Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: plan invalidation vs stored procedures |
| Date: | 2008-08-07 02:11:42 |
| Message-ID: | b42b73150808061911m2470e737q9e75e05dcf5c35f0@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Florian Pflug <fgp(dot)phlo(dot)org(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>
>> you missed the point...if your return type is a composite type that is
>> backed by the table (CREATE TABLE, not CREATE TYPE), then you can
>> 'alter' the type by altering the table. This can be done without full
>> drop recreate of the function.
>
> Which - at least IMHO - clearly shows that we ought to support
> ALTER TYPE for composite types ;-)
>
> Is there anything fundamental standing in the way of that, or is it just
> that nobody yet cared enough about this?
I look at it from another perspective. I see very little value in
'create type as'...it just creates a table that you can't insert to
and can't alter (but I agree).
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-08-07 04:04:39 | Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures |
| Previous Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2008-08-07 01:34:05 | Re: Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches [try#2] |