Re: Proposal: stand-alone composite types

> than to do:
>
> CREATE TYPE some_arbitrary_name AS (f1 int, f2 text);
> CREATE FUNCTION foo() RETURNS SETOF some_arbitrary_name;
>
> But I admit it is only a "nice-to-have", not a "need-to-have".
>
> How do others feel? Do we want to be able to implicitly create a
> composite type during function creation? Or is it unneeded bloat?
>
> I prefer the former, but don't have a strong argument against the latter.

The former is super sweet, but does require some extra catalog entries for
every procedure - but that's the DBA's problem. They can always use the
latter syntax. The format syntax is cool and easy and it Should Just Work
for newbies...

Chris