On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > silly8888 <silly8888@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> create type mytype as (x integer, y integer); > >> create table foo( >> a mytype primary key, >> b integer >> ); > >> create table bar( >> a mytype references foo >> ); > > While that probably ought to work, is there a really good reason that > you're not doing this with a conventional two-column primary key and > foreign key? The composite type is going to be exceedingly inefficient, > not to mention not portable to other DBMSes. > > regards, tom lane > You are right, the two-column solution is probably better. The only reason I posted here was to see if I hit a bug (and it seems that I might have). BTW the composite might offer some small benefits in this case, namely when combined with user defined DOMAINs it can simplify CHECK constraints a lot. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
