"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes: > My main point here is that writing "CREATE TYPE typename AS DOMAIN" would > be expected, with the appropriate sub-specification, similar to "CREATE > TYPE typename AS RANGE".
Well, that point seems entirely invented. CREATE DOMAIN is in the SQL standard:
While SQL does also have a CREATE TYPE command, domains are not among the kinds of type it can make. So that separation is very much per spec.
I don't personally find the doc changes proposed here to be a good idea. 001 seems to add a lot of verbosity and not much else.
The intent is to add accuracy, which means verbosity given the non-obvious choice made in the current implementation.
002 invents terms used nowhere else in our docs, which seems more confusing than anything else.
Fair point - was hoping it would be discussion starter.
It is very badly in need of copy-editing, as well.
I'll look at it with fresh eyes...
Also, I think the phrase you are looking for might be "type category".
Actually what I want is "Type type (typtype)" according to pg_type but that seemed like an implementation detail that would be undesirable to use here so I tried to give it a different name. Type category (typcategory) already has a meaning.
Using "type definition" to mean that seems completely wrong. Deciding that capitalized Type means something special is something I might expect to find in one of the more abstruse philosophers, but it's not a great idea in the Postgres manual ... especially when you then use different terminology elsewhere.
I very well may have been inconsistent but coupled with the above point "type of the Type" seems easier to follow compared to "type of the type" if I were to change "type definition" to "type of the Type".
