From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Post Gresql <postgresql(at)taljaren(dot)se> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: create type with %type or %rowtype |
Date: | 2020-11-18 03:37:28 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYSNf4g0_QHwbMnX6LAcmaQJJKG_Qd0yBkSutPQYafMqQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
(resending to include the list)
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 3:12 PM Post Gresql <postgresql(at)taljaren(dot)se> wrote:
> create type my_type as my_table%rowtype;
>
This would be redundant with existing behavior - all tables have a
corresponding type already
create type my_type as my_table.my_column%type;
>
What does the indirection get us?
> Correct? It seems to be a feature for plpgsql programing only, right?
>
Correct
>
> But wouldn't that be a good thing to be able to do?
You are the one proposing it - why would it be a good thing to do?
Or would it cause
> too many problems?
>
If it doesn't have value it wouldn't matter whether it would be problematic.
David J.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 3:12 PM Post Gresql <postgresql(at)taljaren(dot)se> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> It seems that I can not create a type with
>
> create type my_type as my_table%rowtype;
>
> or
>
> create type my_type as my_table.my_column%type;
>
> Correct? It seems to be a feature for plpgsql programing only, right?
>
> But wouldn't that be a good thing to be able to do? Or would it cause
> too many problems?
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Yi Sun | 2020-11-18 03:54:15 | received immediate shutdown request caused cluster failover |
Previous Message | Rich Shepard | 2020-11-18 00:01:47 | Re: PK issue: serial sequence needs updating [RESOLVED] |