Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On mån, 2010-01-11 at 19:27 -0500, Andrew Chernow wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>> What is the point of CREATE TYPE name AS () syntax? Why would one use create
>> type when there is create table? Does it provide additional functionality I am
>> unaware of or does it exist for comformance reasons?
>
> Well, that is a very deep question. ;-) I suppose a concise answer
> would be that types are for passing data around between functions, and
> tables are for storing data on disk.
>
>
In practice, tables can be used for passing data around or storing it on disk.
So, I guess my question remains unanswered as to what the composite type offers
that a table doesn't; other than a name that better suits the task.
--
Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts
http://www.esilo.com/
