Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: contrib/snapshot

From: Joel Jacobson <joel(at)gluefinance(dot)com>
To: Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: contrib/snapshot
Date: 2011-01-03 00:50:39
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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


pgsql-hackers by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group