| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |