On ons, 2011-07-27 at 17:57 -0400, Josh Kupershmidt wrote: > > I think table_name is fine, and if you are very worried, add below > that > > a table_name also includes views (or whatever). > > It includes tables, views, composite types, and foreign tables. Is > "table" really an appropriate description for all those objects?
Well, the facts are: According to the SQL standard, "table" includes views and foreign tables. According to scientific-ish database literature, a table is a relation and vice versa. So to someone new who doesn't know much about the PostgreSQL jargon, neither "table" nor "relation" are very precise at all. But I would suggest that there is more support outside of PostgreSQL jargon for finding that replacing "table" by "relation" does not increase precision. And indeed, even if you know the PostgreSQL jargon, "relation" means anything stored in pg_class. And in almost all cases, a given command does not successfully operate and any kind of pg_class object. So using "relation" here creates some kind of illusion that will eventually fail, forcing the user to manually figure out what actually works. So the bottom line is, I would avoid the term "relation" and look for other ways to add clarity and precision to the documentation. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
