Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: >> FWIW, the term "stand-alone composite type" appears twice in our >> documentation.
> Hmm, OK. Anyone else have an opinion on the relative merits of: > ERROR: type stuff is not a composite type > vs. > ERROR: type stuff is not a stand-alone composite type > The intent of adding "stand-alone" was, I believe, to clarify that it > has to be a CREATE TYPE stuff AS ... type, not just a row type (that > is, naturally, composite, in some less-pure sense). I'm not sure > whether the extra word actually makes it more clear, though. In 99.9% of the code and docs, a table rowtype is a perfectly good composite type. I agree with Noah that just saying "composite type" is inadequate here; but I'm not sure that "stand-alone" is a helpful adjective either. What about inverting the message phrasing, ie ERROR: type stuff must not be a table's row type You might need some extra logic to keep on giving "is not a composite type" in cases where it's not composite at all. But this is enough of a departure from our usual behavior that I think the error message had better be pretty darn clear. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers