Not a bad idea. I'd need to convert existing data, but it'd be an excuse to try out hstore. ^_^
Mike * <mike.blackw...@rrd.com>* On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:08, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On a practical level, the error blocks nothing -- you can bypass it > > trivially. It's just an annoyance that prevents things that users > > would like to be able to do with table row types. So I'd argue to > > remove the check, although I can kinda see the argument that it's not > > a bug unless the check was recently introduced so that it broke older > > code. > > The behavior hasn't changed since at least as far back as 8.1, so > you're correct (once again) -- not a bug. I'm really surprised I > haven't already bumped into this. I usually don't mix > tables-as-storage with tables-as-composites though. > > Mike, on 9.1, you'll probably get more mileage out of using the hstore > type for row storage if you want to do auditing in that style. > > merlin >
