Re: Typed table DDL loose ends

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:23:49AM -0700, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> >> I guess my gut feeling is that it would make more sense to forbid it
> >> outright for 9.1, and we can look at relaxing that restriction later
> >> if we're so inclined.
> >>
> >> Much as with the problem Tom fixed in commit
> >> eb51af71f241e8cb199790dee9ad246bb36b3287, I'm concerned that there may
> >> be other cases that we're not thinking of right now, and while we
> >> could find them all and fix them, the amount of functionality gained
> >> is fairly marginal, and I don't really want to hold up the release
> >> while we bug-swat.
> >
> > Symmetry was the best cause I could find to continue allowing it, and your case
> > in favor of reducing the bug surface is more compelling. ?Let's forbid it.
>
> OK.  Care to propose a patch?

Sure; attached.  It requires that the type relation be RELKIND_COMPOSITE_TYPE.
We hadn't explicitly discussed the use of foreign table, view, toast table, or
sequence row types.  The first two might have some value, someday; I'm sure
nobody cares for the second two.

nm