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. Not sure
how important that is, but I suspect that the system is not all that
robust against use of shell types where a completed type is expected.
You'd have to go over a lot of code with a fine-tooth comb before
putting this ability into the hands of ordinary users, else you'd be
creating loopholes for DOS attacks (or worse).
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.
regards, tom lane
