On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Florian Pflug <fgp.phlo.org@gmail.com> wrote:
> Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>
>> you missed the point...if your return type is a composite type that is
>> backed by the table (CREATE TABLE, not CREATE TYPE), then you can
>> 'alter' the type by altering the table. This can be done without full
>> drop recreate of the function.
>
> Which - at least IMHO - clearly shows that we ought to support
> ALTER TYPE for composite types ;-)
>
> Is there anything fundamental standing in the way of that, or is it just
> that nobody yet cared enough about this?
I look at it from another perspective. I see very little value in
'create type as'...it just creates a table that you can't insert to
and can't alter (but I agree).
merlin
