Re: Typed tables

On mån, 2010-01-11 at 15:02 -0500, Andrew Chernow wrote:
> ISTM that the ultimate would be a 'create table (...._) without storage' 
> (or some'm) and make 'create type' an alternate syntax for SQL 
> conformance.

I don't really understand the purpose of that.

>   For various reasons, we've internally adopted using create 
> table for all composites and use a c-like naming convenstion of 
> appending _t to such beasts.

Yes, I have a similar convention.