On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 01:33:56PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >David Fetter wrote: > >>The first is in type_sanity, which basically doesn't understand > >>that complex types now have array types associated with them and > >>thinks they're orphan array types, so it's actually the test > >>that's not right. > > > >Hmm, I question the usefulness of automatically creating array > >types for all relation types that are created -- the catalog bloat > >seems a bit too much. An array of pg_autovacuum for example, does > >that make sense? > > > >I'm not sure what was the reaction to having an "CREATE TYPE foo > >ARRAY OF bar" command of some kind? I think this was discussed but > >not explicitely rejected, or was it? > > It certainly seems rather inconsistent to have array types > autocreated for some types but not others.
This was my thought in the latest version of the patch. > But unless we create them for all types then I think we need a > command such as you suggest. > > How much bloat will this really be? If it's not used it won't get > into the type cache. I find it hard to believe there will be any > very significant performance effect. So do I, but how would we check this? Cheers, D -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
