Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au> writes:
> The Problem
> Currently, if one has:
> Create Type FOO(
> VALUE1 Int,
> VALUE2 Int);
> And one has a query:
> Select F1, F2 from A_TABLE;
> One can return the rows, or one can create a row object and cast it to
> FOO type.
I'm kind of wondering where is the connection between type FOO and
table A_TABLE?
Once you have the table, there is already a perfectly good composite
type A_TABLE that you could use without any worries about whether it
matches the table. So I'm not following why introducing FOO adds
anything of value.
regards, tom lane
