On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 01:33:47PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > However, there are still some oddities. For example, a change to or > removal of the base type affects the array type, but the array type > can be directly operated on (e.g. alter type _aa set schema foo ). > I'm inclined to say we should prevent direct operations on array > types, and they should live or die by their parent types. > > Thoughts?
+1 on binding the array types tightly to the parent types. 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 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
