Tom Lane wrote:
>Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes:
>
>
>>Actually, I'm think this whole automatic creation of a shell-type a bit
>>silly anyway. Why not simply solve the problem directly like so:
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>CREATE TYPE complex AS SHELL;
>>
>>
>
>One of the unwritten consequences of the way that it works now is that
>only superusers can "clutter the catalogs" with shell types.
>
>
I suppose we could restrict this variant to superusers, at least initially.
[snip]
>Having said that, I agree that this seems conceptually cleaner, though
>I'm not sure we could ever get rid of the old way because of backward
>compatibility issues.
>
>
>
They are not mutually exclusive, are they? I too like Martijn's suggestion.
cheers
andrew
