On 2024-03-29 02:42 +0100, David G. Johnston wrote:
> For consideration for the doc portion. The existing wording is too
> imprecise for my liking and just tacking on "expects...create type" is
> jarring.
>
> """
> Creates a typed table, which takes it structure from an existing (name
> optionally schema-qualified) stand-alone composite type i.e., one created
> using CREATE TYPE) though it still produces a new composite type as well.
> The table will have a dependency to the referenced type such cascaded alter
> and drop actions on the type will propagate to the table.
>
> A typed table always has the same column names and data types as the type
> it is derived from, and you cannot specify additional columns. But the
> CREATE TABLE command can add defaults and constraints to the table, as well
> as specify storage parameters.
> """
Thanks, that sounds better. I incorporated that with some minor edits
in the attached v3.
> We do use the term "stand-alone composite" in create type so I'm inclined
> to use it instead of "composite created with CREATE TYPE"; especially in
> the error messages; I'm a bit more willing to add the cross-reference to
> create type in the user docs.
Okay, changed in v3 as well. I used "created with CREATE TYPE" in the
error message because I thought it's clearer to the user. But I see no
reason for not using "stand-alone" here as well if it's the established
term.
--
Erik