On Nov 5, 2009, at 10:24 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> One thing I'm not sure of is whether to keep the implicit row type in
> that case. That is, would the above command sequence still create a
> "persons" type? We could keep that so as to preserve the property "a
> table always has a row type of the same name"
+1 for keeping it.
> Thoughts?
Any plans to allow the specification of multiple types to define the
table?
"CREATE TABLE employee OF employee_data_type, persons_data_type;"
