Hey Florian, Thank you very much!
2010/12/8 Florian Pflug <[email protected]> > On Dec8, 2010, at 11:35 , Dmitriy Igrishin wrote: > > Is it guaranteed that name of array types in pg_type system > > catalog will always be prefixed by underscore or this convention > > can be changed in future ? > > What's the advantage of letting your code depend on this? > > Within SQL, I suggest you write <type>[] to denote <type>'s array type. In > the catalog, each pg_type row contains a references the corresponding array > type (by OID) in the field "typarray". > > BTW, when querying pg_type, instead of adding another join to pg_type to > get the array type's name, you can simply cast the "typarray" field to > "regtype". That way, should the array type happen to lie in a schema not in > your search_path, the name will even be correctly schema-qualified. (In > fact, it's not the cast which does the translation but rather the implicit > conversion from regtype to cstring that happens when the result is > transferred to the client. For further information, you might want to check > out the documentation of the various reg* types provided by postgres). > > Hope that helps, > Florian Pflug > > -- // Dmitriy.
