On 2023-Nov-29, Tom Lane wrote: > Eric Hanson <e...@aquameta.com> writes: > > 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". > > I agree that this could be improved, mainly because it's far from > clear what the internal name of each type is (and there's at least > one case where the internal name is not shown at all).
Maybe we could split this into multiple *tables*. The main one would be what we already have except the aliases column is removed, and serial types removed; the second table would list serial pseudo-types, without aliases; the third one would have unofficial names (internal names and other aliases) for types listed in the other two. -- Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "The ability of users to misuse tools is, of course, legendary" (David Steele) https://postgr.es/m/11b38a96-6ded-4668-b772-40f992132...@pgmasters.net
