On Jan 2, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> 2011/1/3 Joel Jacobson <joel@gluefinance.com>
> 2011/1/2 Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net>
> Is it actually limited to functions? ISTM this concept would be valuable for anything that's not in pg_class (in
otherwords, 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-relationobjects?
The generic term for objects that keep their metadata in pg_class is "relation".
Actually, now that I think about it, existence in pg_class isn't a good determining factor, because there's stuff like
typesin there.
Aside from tables and sequences, you might also want to exclude indexes, or at least provide the option to, since
rebuildingthem could take a significant amount of time.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect jim@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
