Re: Be more clear what names can be used for tables with "CREATE TABLE"?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Be more clear what names can be used for tables with "CREATE TABLE"? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1139298.1635782656@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Be more clear what names can be used for tables with "CREATE TABLE"? (Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>) |
Ответы |
Re: Be more clear what names can be used for tables with "CREATE TABLE"?
|
Список | pgsql-docs |
Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> writes: > On Sat, 2021-10-30 at 11:08 +0000, Daniel Westermann (DWE) wrote: >> in the documentation for CREATE TABLE we have this sentence: >> "The name of the table must be distinct from the name of any other table, sequence, index, view, or foreign table in thesame schema." >> At least materialized views are missing: > Technically speaking, it is "objects stored in pg_class". We use "relation" for that concept in the code, and I believe that that terminology is also used in the manual. I'm inclined to propose "The name of the table must be distinct from the name of any other relation (table, sequence, index, view, materialized view, or foreign table) in the same schema." I think the existing wording might be that way because somebody figured that "view" could subsume "materialized view". Which isn't an unreasonable position, but we haven't done it like that consistently. I don't think we need to be similarly exhaustive about enumerating the kinds of types that there are. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-docs по дате отправления: