From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Typed tables |
Date: | 2009-11-05 21:55:43 |
Message-ID: | b42b73150911051355p12747d17hb4c75476c97adfe1@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> I'm planning to work on typed tables support. The idea is that you
> create a table out of a composite type (as opposed to the other way
> around, which is currently done automatically).
>
> CREATE TYPE persons_type AS (name text, bdate date);
>
> CREATE TABLE persons OF persons_type;
>
> Or the fancy version:
>
> CREATE TABLE persons OF persons_type ( PRIMARY KEY (name) );
I use composite types (via tables) all the time but I never use
'create type as'...because by doing so you lose the ability to alter
the type with 'alter table'.
Am I correct that I could use your idea to make this possible (albeit
quite ugly) by:
create type foo(a text, b text);
create table foo of foo;
alter table foo add column c text;
drop table foo; -- does this drop the type as well??
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-05 21:57:47 | Re: AFTER triggers & RETURN |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-11-05 21:46:10 | Re: AFTER triggers & RETURN |