Nicolas Aragon <nyco(at)jet(dot)es> writes:
> But this leads me to new questions because it seems that standard types
> aren't hardcoded anywhere. pg_type tells me the name, size and some other
> information about the type. But what about the "kind" of the type (numeric,
> text, date...)?
You pretty much have to know from the name what the datatype is.
Postgres doesn't have any type categorization like that. (Maybe it
should ... I think there are some hacks in the parser that amount to
categorizing the standard datatypes, but that knowledge is not visible
outside the parser.)
> I can only think of comparing the name with a list of names for standard
> types. Is there another simpler method? A standard relation between standard
> types and their OIDs?
In reality, the OIDs assigned to standard types like "bool" and "int4"
are unlikely ever to change; they certainly will not change faster than
once per Postgres major release. You could probably get away with
hard-wiring the knowledge that OID 16 == bool, say. If that seems a
little too ugly, reading the OIDs for known types during startup is
plenty good enough.
If you are dealing with user-defined types, looking up the OIDs at
startup is the way to go. (User type OIDs could change across a
database dump/reload, so hardwiring those would be a bad idea.)
> I can even think that.... is the user (admin) allowed to change the names
> of standard types?
Not if he wants things to keep working ;-)
> Another, more trivial question: do you know where to find nice logos
> for postgres?
See the website.
regards, tom lane
pgsql-interfaces by date
|Next:||From: Mengelbier, Magnus||Date: 1999-08-17 07:47:50|
|Subject: Error using Perl interface|
|Previous:||From: Mark Dzmura||Date: 1999-08-16 23:58:44|
|Subject: A few more JDBC meta-data questions...|