From: Amit Kapila [mailto:amit.kapil...@gmail.com] On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > > > The more SQL way would be records (composite types). That would make > > catalog inspection a LOT easier and presumably make it easier to change the > > partitioning key (I'm assuming ALTER TYPE cascades to stored data). Records > > are stored internally as tuples; not sure if that would be faster than a > > List of > > Consts or a pg_node_tree. Nodes would theoretically allow using things other > > than Consts, but I suspect that would be a bad idea. > > > > While I couldn’t find an example in system catalogs where a record/composite > type is used, there are instances of pg_node_tree at a number of places like > in pg_attrdef and others. Could you please point me to such a usage for > reference? >
> I think you can check the same by manually creating table > with a user-defined type. > Create type typ as (f1 int, f2 text); > Create table part_tab(c1 int, c2 typ); Is there such a custom-defined type used in some system catalog? Just not sure how one would put together a custom type to use in a system catalog given the way a system catalog is created. That's my concern but it may not be valid. Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
