Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> writes:
> It's kinda hard for me to visualize where it makes sense to define
> the original table column as the bare type but use a domain when
> referencing it in the view.
As far as that goes, I think the OP was unhappy about the performance
of the information_schema views, which in our implementation do exactly
that so that the exposed types of the view columns conform to the SQL
standard, even though the underlying catalogs use PG-centric types.
I don't believe that that's the only reason why the performance of the
information_schema views tends to be sucky, but it's certainly a reason.
regards, tom lane