Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>
>>This looks very interesting. Should we add it to the core
>>distribution?
>>
>>
>
>I think such types would be better implemented as some sort of
>structured type, possibly with constructors and methods and all the
>other stuff that SQL talks about. We don't have all of that yet --
>maybe we don't need all of it immediately -- but before we start
>endorsing many of these types I'd like to see some consideration given
>to this issue.
>
>
>
Yeah, looks interesting but let's find the wrinkles. I was wondering if
it might have relevance to what I wanted to do with enumeration types,
i.e. we would tag each one with its particular enumeration id.
I also don't like the idea of it being done with user tables - if this
is core material then the tags should go in the catalog, ISTM.
cheers
andrew