Re: Arrays of Complex Types

Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 06:42:14PM -0600, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>   
>>> I'm still not happy about the idea of doing this for every relation
>>> (and doing it for sequences and indexes would be the height of
>>> wastefulness).  How about we only do it for composite types?
>>>       
>> I'm not happy about that. I agree that indexes and sequences should not be
>> done, but can we please do plain table types? I would be OK if we skipped
>> catalog tables, if that would make you happier.
>>     
>
> Two thoughts:
>
> 1. Make the array types only when someone actually uses them (create a
> table with it or something).
>
> 2. Make a command: CREATE TYPE ARRAY OF "foo";
>
> The latter has the benefit of not restricting it to an arbitrary choice
> of types, you could accept both domains and composite types here. I
> don't think it's unreasonable to require people to predeclare their
> usage of array-of-compostite-type.
>
> Perhaps change the word "CREATE" to "DECLARE". I'm thinking of the
> explicit declaration of shell types as precedent here.
>
>
>   
#2 would be fine with me - not keen on #1.

cheers

andrew