| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Roderick A(dot) Anderson" <raanders(at)tincan(dot)org> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Confusing terminology |
| Date: | 2002-01-20 22:25:40 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0201201723290.712-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Roderick A. Anderson writes:
> It was a rhetorical question (aka. smart-ass). My point was a table,
> view, sequence, and their friends are all relations. Or at least to my
> understanding the table and view are relations.
> And therefore Relation 'foo' already exists makes sense to me.
From a point of view of implementation, the term "relation" also covers
indexes, which can be confusing. Standard SQL (which doesn't have indexes
or sequences) uses the term "table" to mean both regular tables and views.
Neither of these choices are entirely pretty.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-20 22:52:07 | Re: pltlc and pltlcu problems |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-01-20 22:17:57 | Re: pltlc and pltlcu problems |