Re: Typed table DDL loose ends

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> What about inverting the message phrasing, ie
>>>
>>> ERROR: type stuff must not be a table's row type
>
>> It also can't be a view's row type, a sequence's row type, a foreign
>> table's row type...
>
> Well, you could say "relation's row type" if you wanted to be formally
> correct, but I'm not convinced that's an improvement.

Me neither, especially since composite types are also relations, in
our parlance.

I'm not strongly attached to or repulsed by any particular option, so
however we end up doing it is OK with me.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company