Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> I think I like it. Certainly seems to get round the ordering problem nicely.
>>
>
> At least as far as the user's names are concerned. There's some
> ordering dependency for the names that the array types end up with,
> but we had that problem already; and AFAIK it shouldn't create any
> big issue for dump/restore.
>
There will only be an issue if you use table/type names beginning with
underscore, right? And I don't think it will matter because nobody has
been relying on that to date as we haven't had array types for those. We
should probably document that relying on the array name is both fragile
and unnecessary.
> BTW, I forgot to mention that this patch also fixes an oversight in the
> original patch: we all missed the fact that ALTER TABLE RENAME didn't
> rename the rowtype's array type.
>
>
Oh, good catch. Sorry about that.
cheers
andrew