Merlin Moncure wrote:
> you missed the point...if your return type is a composite type that is
> backed by the table (CREATE TABLE, not CREATE TYPE), then you can
> 'alter' the type by altering the table. This can be done without full
> drop recreate of the function.
Which - at least IMHO - clearly shows that we ought to support
ALTER TYPE for composite types ;-)
Is there anything fundamental standing in the way of that, or is it just
that nobody yet cared enough about this?
regrads, Florian Pflug
