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: | AANLkTi=t7mEazLezGgs1ECN0Vhbhu8o5O59ri7opnTeX@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-01-03 01:14:55 | Re: contrib/snapshot |
Previous Message | Joel Jacobson | 2011-01-03 00:44:53 | Re: contrib/snapshot |