| From: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: misleading error message in ProcessUtilitySlow T_CreateStatsStmt |
| Date: | 2025-08-22 09:46:45 |
| Message-ID: | 202508220946.osn274hnjxez@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2025-Aug-21, Kirill Reshke wrote:
> I wouldn’t say this is misleading, but " a single relation" is indeed
> not precise enough. IMO we need a more precise term to distinguish
> regular relation and table func.
I'm not sure. See the definition of relation in the glossary:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/18/glossary.html#GLOSSARY-RELATION
The generic term for all objects in a database that have a name and a
list of attributes defined in a specific order. Tables, sequences,
views, foreign tables, materialized views, composite types, and
indexes are all relations.
More generically, a relation is a set of tuples; for example, the
result of a query is also a relation.
In PostgreSQL, Class is an archaic synonym for relation.
(I wonder why this says "generically" rather than "generally". Is that
word choice a mistake?) Maybe in the "For example" clause we can also
mention table functions.
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) | 2025-08-22 09:57:00 | RE: Add support for specifying tables in pg_createsubscriber. |
| Previous Message | Álvaro Herrera | 2025-08-22 09:40:40 | Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently] |