| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Typed tables |
| Date: | 2009-11-08 21:17:47 |
| Message-ID: | 1257715067.5363.16.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 19:24 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> This is useful in conjunction with PL/Proxy and similar RPC-type
> setups. On the frontend/proxy instances you only create the type, and
> the backend instances you create the storage for the type, and the
> database system would give you a little support keeping them in sync.
> Think interface and implementation.
Not sure I see why this is good. Why is issuing CREATE TYPE so much
easier than using CREATE TABLE? Is it worth the extra syntax and code to
support it? Can we do anything additional as a result of this? Is this
required by the standard or are we going past the standard?
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-11-08 21:41:03 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-11-08 17:32:44 | Re: Why do OLD and NEW have special internal names? |