Re: What's the benefit (or usage scenario) of a "typed table"?

From: Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>
To: Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: What's the benefit (or usage scenario) of a "typed table"?
Date: 2016-12-31 16:54:39
Message-ID: e3d9bff5-efc5-019e-0831-42795d8a20bb@aklaver.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 12/31/2016 08:25 AM, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
> David G. Johnston schrieb am 31.12.2016 um 16:51:
>>> I wonder what the benefit of a typed table is and when this would be
>>> useful?
>>
>> But I'd say if you want a table with said structure you should plan on
>> droppign the original type after you've altered all references to it to
>> point to the new implicit type created with the table.
>
> I am not planning to use it.
>
> I am just wondering _if_ there is an advantage to this setup
>
> Apparently at some point someone thought it would be useful, otherwise
> it wouldn't have been implemented I guess.

I see it as completing the loop. A table creates a composite type, a
composite type creates a table. Not sure where that falls on the useful
scale.

>
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chris Withers 2017-01-01 21:45:35 Re: default representation of null in psql
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-12-31 16:46:09 Re: What's the benefit (or usage scenario) of a "typed table"?