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
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"? |