On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 10:14 PM Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 19.02.26 09:48, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > > The || should be &&. The bug shows up as an initdb failure > > running bootstrap script ... 2026-02-19 14:06:43.411 IST [197482] > > FATAL: cannot open relation "pg_type" > > 2026-02-19 14:06:43.411 IST [197482] DETAIL: This operation is not > > supported for tables. > > > > I think this is more future-proof. If a relkind gets added and needs > > to be in this list, we will notice it from the error. I think we > > should avoid mentioning specific relkinds in the comment as well since > > that list will need to be updated as the set of relkinds changes. Just > > mentioning the criteria should be enough. I have slightly improved the > > comment in the attached 0003. > > > >> Secondly, the sequence.c one was probably copied from the table.c one, > >> but I think we can make the error message a bit more direct by just > >> saying "... is not a sequence" instead of "cannot open relation". > >> > > > > +1. > > > >> These are the two attached patches. This is just something I found > >> while working on something else nearby. > > > > Attached are your two patches + bug fix in 0002 + my suggestions in 0003. > > Thanks, committed with your fixes. (I fine-tuned the comment in patch > 0003 a bit further, since arguably you can "reference" a composite type > in a query.) >
I actually wanted to write "referenced in FROM clause" but then target relations are not part of FROM clause per say. The new comment is more accurate. AFAIK, composite type can be referenced in places where any other type can be referenced. Is there a place where it can be referenced in place of a regular table? -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat
