I can't imagine
test=# create type stat1 as (i1 int, i2 int, i3 int, t1 text);
CREATE TYPE
test=# create table stest(s1 stat1);
CREATE TABLE
test=# insert into stest values ((1,1,1,'t'));
INSERT 0 1
test=# select * from stest;
s1
-----------
(1,1,1,t)
(1 row)
being a big issue. You've got to create the tables, you can create the
type while you're at it, right?
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 15:59, Bob Pawley wrote:
> Our application will be dispersed amongst many users.
>
> I want to keep the datbase as generic as possible.
>
> Bob
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tino Wildenhain" <tino@wildenhain.de>
> To: "Bob Pawley" <rjpawley@shaw.ca>
> Cc: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>; "Stephan Szabo"
> <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com>; "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; "Postgresql"
> <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 1:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Arrays
>
>
> > Bob Pawley schrieb:
> >> The order for the array is Min, Norm, Max, Unit.
> >>
> >> I'll probably reorder it with the unit first as every value has a unit.
> >>
> >
> > I'd rather create/use a custom datatype for your needs.
> > This array stuff seems overly hackish for me.
> >
> > Regards
> > Tino
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly