Re: Typed table DDL loose ends

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:20:21AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I tweaked the comments accordingly, and also reverted your change to
>> the error message, because I don't want to introduce new terminology
>> here that we're not using anywhere else.
>
> FWIW, the term "stand-alone composite type" appears twice in our documentation.

Hmm, OK.  Anyone else have an opinion on the relative merits of:

ERROR: type stuff is not a composite type
vs.
ERROR: type stuff is not a stand-alone composite type

The intent of adding "stand-alone" was, I believe, to clarify that it
has to be a CREATE TYPE stuff AS ... type, not just a row type (that
is, naturally, composite, in some less-pure sense).  I'm not sure
whether the extra word actually makes it more clear, though.

Opinions?  Suggestions?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company