Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> That's not really the most preferable solution, I think, seeing that it >> still leaves the user with the problem of having to create the types in >> the right order to start with.
> I'm not sure we can keep the _foo convention and avoid that. Auto-rename. I'm working on a patch now, and it doesn't look like it'll be too awful. Will post it for comments when it's working. > ... I'd vote to revert the new name > mangling piece (but keep the typarray mapping column), deprecate the use > of the _foo convention, and abandon it next release. I came across a comment in the source that says PG has been using _foo for arrays since 3.1 (!). I don't think we can get away with changing it, certainly not with only one release cycle's notice. The current code is OK from a compatibility point of view, since it only changes _foo to something else in situations where the old way would've failed outright. I think we need to preserve that property ... regards, tom lane ---------------------------(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