Re: functions returning records

From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>, Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: functions returning records
Date: 2001-06-27 16:14:54
Message-ID: 200106271614.f5RGEsO18688@jupiter.us.greatbridge.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> > 1. Adding a new relkind that means 'record'. So we use
> > pg_class, pg_attribute and pg_type as we do for tables
> > and views to describe a structure.
>
> It seems fairly ugly to have a pg_class entry for something that
> isn't a table or even a table-like entity. It would be nice if
> we could describe a record type with only pg_type and pg_attribute
> entries. I haven't thought about it in detail, but seems like it
> could be done if pg_attribute entries are changed to reference
> pg_type, not pg_class, rows as their parent. However, this would
> break so many existing queries in psql and other clients that it'd
> probably be unacceptable :-(

It's not THAT ugly for me, and the fact that it's named
"pg_class" instead of "pg_relation" makes some sense all of
the sudden.

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Frank Ch. Eigler 2001-06-27 16:27:08 Re: Re: Encrypting pg_shadow passwords
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2001-06-27 16:07:47 Re: Non-trivial rewriting sql query