Re: Typed tables

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On mån, 2010-01-11 at 19:27 -0500, Andrew Chernow wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> On mån, 2010-01-11 at 15:02 -0500, Andrew Chernow wrote:
>>>> ISTM that the ultimate would be a 'create table (...._) without storage' 
>>>> (or some'm) and make 'create type' an alternate syntax for SQL 
>>>> conformance.
>>> I don't really understand the purpose of that.
>>>
>> What is the point of CREATE TYPE name AS () syntax?  Why would one use create 
>> type when there is create table?  Does it provide additional functionality I am 
>> unaware of or does it exist for comformance reasons?
> 
> Well, that is a very deep question. ;-)  I suppose a concise answer
> would be that types are for passing data around between functions, and
> tables are for storing data on disk.
> 
> 

In practice, tables can be used for passing data around or storing it on disk. 
So, I guess my question remains unanswered as to what the composite type offers 
that a table doesn't; other than a name that better suits the task.

-- 
Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts
http://www.esilo.com/