Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> One thing I'm not sure of is whether to keep the implicit row type in
> that case. That is, would the above command sequence still create a
> "persons" type?
Are you intending that the table and the original composite type are
independent, or are still tied together --- ie, does ALTER TABLE ADD
COLUMN or similar affect the composite type?
If not, you *must* have a rowtype that is associated with the table.
regards, tom lane