Re: Typed tables

On tis, 2010-01-12 at 09:54 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> *) should 'create type as' get an 'alter'? ( I think most would think so)

Working on that right now ...

> *) if so, how do you distinguish between the composite and non
> composite version?  How would this command look?

I'm only dealing with the composite types right now, and the syntax is
ALTER TYPE name ADD/DROP ATTRIBUTE name, per SQL standard.

> *) should we be able to define check constraints on composite types
> (presumably, enforced on a cast)?

That could be an interesting feature addition.  It'd basically be the
composite-type version of domains.

> *) should 'create type as' should be  walled off with 'create table'
> handling most cases of type creation? (previously would have said yes,
> but with typed table enhancement, probably not)

This might be a matter of taste, but also note that these interfaces are
prescribed by the SQL standard, so if you have them, they should do the
things the spec says.