Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
>
>
>> The first is in type_sanity, which basically doesn't understand that
>> complex types now have array types associated with them and thinks
>> they're orphan array types, so it's actually the test that's not
>> right.
>>
>
> Hmm, I question the usefulness of automatically creating array types for
> all relation types that are created -- the catalog bloat seems a bit too
> much. An array of pg_autovacuum for example, does that make sense?
>
> I'm not sure what was the reaction to having an "CREATE TYPE foo ARRAY
> OF bar" command of some kind? I think this was discussed but not
> explicitely rejected, or was it?
>
>
It certainly seems rather inconsistent to have array types autocreated
for some types but not others. But unless we create them for all types
then I think we need a command such as you suggest.
How much bloat will this really be? If it's not used it won't get into
the type cache. I find it hard to believe there will be any very
significant performance effect.
cheers
andrew
