From: | Gevik Babakhani <pgdev(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_class and enum types |
Date: | 2009-05-24 22:17:35 |
Message-ID: | 4A19C77F.6010700@xs4all.nl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> 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
>
>
Thank you :)
--
Regards,
Gevik
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-24 22:23:23 | Re: integer overflow in reloption.h |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-05-24 22:14:31 | Re: [HACKERS] pull raw text of a message by message-id |