Re: Proposal: stand-alone composite types

Joe Conway wrote:
> Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> >>That's what I was thinking. In cases where you want to use the type for
> >>several functions, use CREATE TYPE. If you only need the type for one
> >>function, let the function creation process manage it for you.
> >
> > It would be nice then to have some mechanism for converting the
> > "automatic type" to a named type which could be used elsewhere.
> > Otherwise one would need to garbage collect the separate stuff later,
> > which would probably go into the "not so convenient" category of
> > features...
>
> Well I think that could be handled with the new dependency tracking
> system. Same as the SERIAL/sequence analogy -- when you drop the
> function, the type would automatically and transparently also get dropped.

All this type extension stuff is complex. If we can make it easier for
people to get started with it, we should.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073