[HACKERS] pg_class and enum types
I was wondering why there is no pg_class record for the enum types. Do we treat the enum types differently? -- Regards, Gevik -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] pg_class and enum types
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Gevik Babakhani pg...@xs4all.nl wrote: I was wondering why there is no pg_class record for the enum types. Do we treat the enum types differently? Because types are stored in pg_type, not pg_class? ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] pg_class and enum types
Robert Haas wrote: On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Gevik Babakhani pg...@xs4all.nl wrote: I was wondering why there is no pg_class record for the enum types. Do we treat the enum types differently? Because types are stored in pg_type, not pg_class? ...Robert That is certainly not true check the following... create type test_type as ( field1 integer, field2 varchar ); select * from pg_class where relname='test_type' -- Regards, Gevik -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] pg_class and enum types
Gevik Babakhani wrote: I was wondering why there is no pg_class record for the enum types. Do we treat the enum types differently? Why do you think we should? What would the record look like? cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] pg_class and enum types
Gevik Babakhani wrote: Robert Haas wrote: On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Gevik Babakhani pg...@xs4all.nl wrote: I was wondering why there is no pg_class record for the enum types. Do we treat the enum types differently? Because types are stored in pg_type, not pg_class? ...Robert That is certainly not true check the following... create type test_type as ( field1 integer, field2 varchar ); select * from pg_class where relname='test_type' It's not so much that enum types are handled specially, but that composite types are. :-) There is no pg_class entry for int either. cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] pg_class and enum types
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Gevik Babakhani wrote: I was wondering why there is no pg_class record for the enum types. Do we treat the enum types differently? Why do you think we should? What would the record look like? cheers andrew I am not implying whether we should or we should not. I was just looking for the logic behind it. Re-reading what I just wrote with your reply gives me hint. Thanx. -- Regards, Gevik -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] pg_class and enum types
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] pg_class and enum types
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
