Re: relation vs table...

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Terrence Brannon <metaperl(at)urth(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: relation vs table...
Date: 2003-10-09 13:20:46
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0310091517330.31740-100000@peter.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Terrence Brannon writes:

> I don't understand why Postgres thinks I am creating a relation _and_ I
> don't know what it considers a relation to be.

In the context of relational databases, relation means the same thing as
table. Because of some implementation artifacts, PostgreSQL internally
treats tables, views, indexes, and sequences alike to some extent and
refers to all of them together as relations. So when you see an error
message telling you that a relation was not found, that means PostgreSQL
was looking for a table, a view, an index, or a sequence. This artificial
terminology isn't ideal, but it creates few problems in practice.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Oliver Elphick 2003-10-09 13:25:30 Re: relation vs table...
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2003-10-09 13:07:17 Re: relation vs table...