On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I think you're conflating the table with its row type, and I'd like to
>> see some prior writing indicating otherwise.
>
> I will agree that a language lawyer could argue that a table rowtype
> doesn't have to act like a separately-declared composite type, but
> that surely doesn't meet the POLA.
Well, actually, what I thought was that the rowtype *should* act
exactly like a separately-declared composite rowtype. Which is to
say, it shouldn't have a default, because a separately-declared
composite rowtype *can't have a default*. If that's not the consensus
position, so be it, but it made sense to me.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
