Re: "name" vs "alias" in datatype table
| От | Eric Hanson |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: "name" vs "alias" in datatype table |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CACA6kxixrAJoTt7MpUtbuT++JDifWiPQCLJ5YzFzpML2Pm-WYQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: "name" vs "alias" in datatype table (Eric Hanson <eric@aquameta.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: "name" vs "alias" in datatype table
|
| Список | pgsql-docs |
The larger point being, the "name" vs "alias" paradigm presented in this table does not accurately represent PostgreSQL, and conveys an inaccurate picture of the relationship between type names. int4 is not an "alias".
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:10 AM Eric Hanson <eric@aquameta.com> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 7:40 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:On 23.11.23 21:51, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> I think there could be some clarification of what is a "name" vs. "alias" on
> the datatypes table. Right now, what's in the "Aliases" column is sometimes
> postgres's internal type (e.g. `pg_catalog.int4`), and sometimes the "pretty
> name", (e.g. `integer`).
This appears not to be true. `integer` is not listed as an alias.Sorry, "int" is, and it is not in pg_type.
В списке pgsql-docs по дате отправления: