On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> You might want to specify column names as well as well as types, in
>> this second case.
>
> Well, we could do it like VALUES: arbitrarily name the columns column1
> ... columnN and tell people to use an alias if they want other names.
> If it's convenient to fit column names into the syntax, good, but we
> don't absolutely have to.
>
> [ thinks... ] Although actually the obvious SQL-ish syntax for a rowtype
> specification is
>
> ( colname typename [ , ... ] )
>
> so that's probably what we'd want to do in the processed-data case.
Yeah, I think that's good.
> Not sure about the raw-data case --- maybe a predetermined name is
> okay there.
I would expect so.
...Robert