| From: | Florian Pflug <fgp(dot)phlo(dot)org(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(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: | 2008-08-06 19:29:37 |
| Message-ID: | 4899FBA1.3040209@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
regrads, Florian Pflug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2008-08-06 19:36:34 | Re: plan invalidation vs stored procedures |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-08-06 19:16:58 | Re: Status of DISTINCT-by-hashing work |