On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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
It also can't be a view's row type, a sequence's row type, a foreign table's row type... -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
