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.
> For various reasons, we've internally adopted using create
> table for all composites and use a c-like naming convenstion of
> appending _t to such beasts.
Yes, I have a similar convention.
