> "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hard to say what is good for those names imho, don't like > "anytype" :-( > > How about "any"? It's a reserved word per SQL99, I think.
I would actually stick to opaque in that case, already used in other db's. > > I like "cstring", "void" and "internal". > > Okay. > > > Maybe "anyarray" instead of "anyarraytype". > > That would match with "any". I thought you wanted it separate ? > > > And I would prefer "row" instead of "tuple". > > I'm leaning towards agreeing with Stephan: we should use typename > "trigger" to declare triggers. "Tuple" (or "row") is strictly correct > only for BEFORE triggers, not AFTER triggers, so it's a bit of a > misnomer for triggers anyhow. Convinced. > > I'm now also toying with inventing a pseudotype just for procedural > language handlers, which are currently "foo() returns opaque". If we > want the type system to catch misuses of trigger functions, we should > want it for handlers too. Maybe name this type "language_handler"? "HANDLER" would again already be a reserved word, sounds good. Andreas ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]