| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gevik Babakhani <pgdev(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_class and enum types |
| Date: | 2009-05-24 21:24:30 |
| Message-ID: | 4A19BB0E.2000001@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gevik Babakhani wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Gevik Babakhani <pgdev(at)xs4all(dot)nl>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I was wondering why there is no pg_class record for the enum types.
>>> Do we
>>> treat the enum types differently?
>>>
>>
>> Because types are stored in pg_type, not pg_class?
>>
>> ...Robert
>>
> That is certainly not true.... check the following...
>
> create type test_type as
> (
> field1 integer,
> field2 varchar
> );
>
> select * from pg_class where relname='test_type'
It's not so much that enum types are handled specially, but that
composite types are. :-)
There is no pg_class entry for int either.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-05-24 21:28:55 | Re: [HACKERS] pull raw text of a message by message-id |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-05-24 21:21:37 | Re: pg_class and enum types |