> "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at> writes:
> > Hard to say what is good for those names imho, don't like
> "anytype" :-(
>
> How about "any"? It's a reserved word per SQL99, I think.
I would actually stick to opaque in that case, already used in other db's.
> > I like "cstring", "void" and "internal".
>
> Okay.
>
> > Maybe "anyarray" instead of "anyarraytype".
>
> That would match with "any".
I thought you wanted it separate ?
>
> > And I would prefer "row" instead of "tuple".
>
> I'm leaning towards agreeing with Stephan: we should use typename
> "trigger" to declare triggers. "Tuple" (or "row") is strictly correct
> only for BEFORE triggers, not AFTER triggers, so it's a bit of a
> misnomer for triggers anyhow.
Convinced.
>
> I'm now also toying with inventing a pseudotype just for procedural
> language handlers, which are currently "foo() returns opaque". If we
> want the type system to catch misuses of trigger functions, we should
> want it for handlers too. Maybe name this type "language_handler"?
"HANDLER" would again already be a reserved word, sounds good.
Andreas