On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 8:01 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> Well, new features that have a perfectly acceptable and usable
>> workaround typically have a fairly low priority of fixing :-)
>>
>> Since tables are basically types, I'm not sure what the difference is
>> between tables and composite types (meaning, why do we have the
>> composite type syntax at all?) I'm not sure if this came up during
>> the design discussion or not.
>
> Your "workaround" involves have a redundant table that you don't ever intend
> to populate.
Redundant how? Since tables and types exist in the same namespace
(can't have table and type in the same schema with the same name), a
table is just a type with storage. If that's a big deal, remove the
insert priv...
I like to keep the table based types I use in a special schema, like
'types' anyways.
merlin