Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.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@Yahoo.com #
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
