| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Gevik Babakhani <pgdev(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_class and enum types |
| Date: | 2009-05-24 21:29:45 |
| Message-ID: | 11565.1243200585@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Gevik Babakhani wrote:
>> select * from pg_class where relname='test_type'
> It's not so much that enum types are handled specially, but that
> composite types are. :-)
Relations (tables) have always had both pg_class and pg_type entries.
The pg_class entry denotes the relation proper, the pg_type entry
denotes the relation's rowtype.
Composite types have the same two entries, there's just a different
notion of which one is primary.
(The reason a composite type has to have a pg_class entry is that
it has pg_attribute entries, and those have to have something in
pg_class for their attrelid to link to.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gevik Babakhani | 2009-05-24 21:32:40 | Re: pg_class and enum types |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-05-24 21:28:55 | Re: [HACKERS] pull raw text of a message by message-id |