Re: Proposal: stand-alone composite types

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.

Joe