On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I think you're conflating the table with its row type, and I'd like to >> see some prior writing indicating otherwise. > > I will agree that a language lawyer could argue that a table rowtype > doesn't have to act like a separately-declared composite type, but > that surely doesn't meet the POLA.
Well, actually, what I thought was that the rowtype *should* act exactly like a separately-declared composite rowtype. Which is to say, it shouldn't have a default, because a separately-declared composite rowtype *can't have a default*. If that's not the consensus position, so be it, but it made sense to me. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
