From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Konstantin Izmailov <pgfizm(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: programmatically retrieve details of a custom Postgres type |
Date: | 2022-11-11 04:30:32 |
Message-ID: | 457233.1668141032@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
I wrote:
> For a composite type, pg_type.typrelid links to pg_class and pg_attribute
> entries that work much like a table.
Actually, you could reverse that: for a table, pg_type.typrelid links to
pg_class and pg_attribute entries that work much like a composite type.
For both relations and composite types, there are pg_class and pg_type
entries that (by convention only) have the same names and namespaces.
They cross-link to each other via pg_class.reltype and pg_type.typrelid.
The associated pg_attribute entries have attrelid matching the pg_class
OID. The catalog entries for the two cases are pretty nearly
indistinguishable except for pg_class.relkind. Again, it's only by
convention that we consider that the pg_type entry is primary for a
composite type but pg_class is primary for a relation.
Of course, a relation has some underlying storage (for most relkinds),
and it will likely have associated entries in other catalogs that a
composite type won't. But the core catalog entries are about the same.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Smith | 2022-11-11 04:47:24 | Re: Support logical replication of DDLs |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-11-11 04:10:13 | Re: programmatically retrieve details of a custom Postgres type |