Re: ALTER composite type does not work, but ALTER TABLE which ROWTYPE is used as a type - works fine
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ALTER composite type does not work, but ALTER TABLE which ROWTYPE is used as a type - works fine |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 493D1A8E.5090606@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: ALTER composite type does not work, but ALTER TABLE which ROWTYPE is used as a type - works fine ("Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: ALTER composite type does not work, but ALTER TABLE which ROWTYPE is used as a type - works fine
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Merlin Moncure wrote: > On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >> >>> Dmitry Koterov wrote: >>> >>>> Could you please say, if ALTER TYPE ... ADD COLUMN is planned for a future >>>> PostgreSQL version? >>>> >>> It is not currently on the TODO list. >>> >> Perhaps we could add it? It's been complained about more than once in >> this space. >> > > Well, new features that have a perfectly acceptable and usable > workaround typically have a fairly low priority of fixing :-) > > Since tables are basically types, I'm not sure what the difference is > between tables and composite types (meaning, why do we have the > composite type syntax at all?) I'm not sure if this came up during > the design discussion or not. > > > Your "workaround" involves have a redundant table that you don't ever intend to populate. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: