Re: DROP TYPE/DROP DOMAIN

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> No, a view is not a table. Try putting an index or trigger on it.

> According to that logic, a domain is not a type. Try putting a check
> constraint on it.

But that's an additional feature, not a missing feature.

I think the reason we are restrictive about the comparable cases for
relations (pg_class entries) is that we use pg_class entries for a
number of things that users see as unrelated or only weakly related.
For example, indexes are not tables by any reasonable definition above
the implementation level; sequences are tables only as an artifact of
a particular implementation (which I think we'll someday have to abandon
BTW); composite types surely aren't tables. It would be surprising for
a composite type to be droppable by DROP TABLE. But domains *are*
types, both to the user and to the implementation, and so I see no
surprise factor in allowing DROP TYPE to work on them.

regards, tom lane