2011/1/3 Joel Jacobson <j...@gluefinance.com> > 2011/1/2 Jim Nasby <j...@nasby.net> > >> Is it actually limited to functions? ISTM this concept would be valuable >> for anything that's not in pg_class (in other words, anything that doesn't >> have user data in it). >> > > Instead of limiting the support to functions, perhaps it would make more > sense to limit it to all non-data objects? > Is there a term for the group of object types not carrying any user data? > > My bad, I see you already answered both my questions. So, it does make sense, and the term for non-data object types is therefore non-pg_class, non-class or perhaps non-relation objects?
-- Best regards, Joel Jacobson Glue Finance
