2011/1/3 Joel Jacobson <joel(at)gluefinance(dot)com>

> 2011/1/2 Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
>
>> Is it actually limited to functions? ISTM this concept would be valuable
>> for anything that's not in pg_class (in other words, anything that doesn't
>> have user data in it).
>>
>
> Instead of limiting the support to functions, perhaps it would make more
> sense to limit it to all non-data objects?
> Is there a term for the group of object types not carrying any user data?
>
>
My bad, I see you already answered both my questions.
So, it does make sense, and the term for non-data object types is therefore
non-pg_class, non-class or perhaps non-relation objects?

-- 
Best regards,

Joel Jacobson
Glue Finance

In response to

• Re: contrib/snapshot at 2011-01-03 00:44:53 from Joel Jacobson

Responses

• Re: contrib/snapshot at 2011-01-03 08:58:26 from Jim Nasby

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Andrew Dunstan	Date: 2011-01-03 01:14:55
	Subject: Re: contrib/snapshot
Previous:	From: Joel Jacobson	Date: 2011-01-03 00:44:53
	Subject: Re: contrib/snapshot