From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, dmitry(at)koterov(dot)ru, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ALTER composite type does not work, but ALTER TABLE which ROWTYPE is used as a type - works fine |
Date: | 2008-12-08 13:01:02 |
Message-ID: | 493D1A8E.5090606@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>>
>>> Dmitry Koterov wrote:
>>>
>>>> Could you please say, if ALTER TYPE ... ADD COLUMN is planned for a future
>>>> PostgreSQL version?
>>>>
>>> It is not currently on the TODO list.
>>>
>> Perhaps we could add it? It's been complained about more than once in
>> this space.
>>
>
> Well, new features that have a perfectly acceptable and usable
> workaround typically have a fairly low priority of fixing :-)
>
> Since tables are basically types, I'm not sure what the difference is
> between tables and composite types (meaning, why do we have the
> composite type syntax at all?) I'm not sure if this came up during
> the design discussion or not.
>
>
>
Your "workaround" involves have a redundant table that you don't ever
intend to populate.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-12-08 13:04:41 | Re: Polymorphic types vs. domains |
Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2008-12-08 12:56:49 | Re: visibility maps and heap_prune |