Re: On partitioning

From: Amit Kapila [mailto:amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com]
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>
> > The more SQL way would be records (composite types). That would make
> > catalog inspection a LOT easier and presumably make it easier to change the
> > partitioning key (I'm assuming ALTER TYPE cascades to stored data). Records
> > are stored internally as tuples; not sure if that would be faster than a List of
> > Consts or a pg_node_tree. Nodes would theoretically allow using things other
> > than Consts, but I suspect that would be a bad idea.
> >
>
> While I couldn’t find an example in system catalogs where a record/composite type is used, there are instances of pg_node_tree at a number of places like in pg_attrdef and others. Could you please point me to such a usage for reference?
>

> I think you can check the same by manually creating table
> with a user-defined type.

> Create type typ as (f1 int, f2 text);
> Create table part_tab(c1 int, c2 typ);

Is there such a custom-defined type used in some system catalog? Just not sure how one would put together a custom type to use in a system catalog given the way a system catalog is created. That's my concern but it may not be valid.

Thanks,
Amit