Re: Appetite for syntactic sugar to match result set columns to UDT fields?

Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au> writes:
> The Problem 
> Currently, if one has: 
> Create Type FOO(
>    VALUE1 Int,
>    VALUE2 Int); 
> And one has a query: 
>     Select F1, F2 from A_TABLE; 
> One can return the rows, or one can create a row object and cast it to
> FOO type. 

I'm kind of wondering where is the connection between type FOO and
table A_TABLE?

Once you have the table, there is already a perfectly good composite
type A_TABLE that you could use without any worries about whether it
matches the table.  So I'm not following why introducing FOO adds
anything of value.

			regards, tom lane