Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tezB8-00GmXA-DN for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 03 Feb 2025 16:20:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tezB5-00EurI-9D for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 03 Feb 2025 16:20:03 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tezB5-00Eur9-0x for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 03 Feb 2025 16:20:03 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1tezB1-00342i-33 for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 03 Feb 2025 16:20:02 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 513GJv74403206; Mon, 3 Feb 2025 11:19:58 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Chris BSomething cc: "David G. Johnston" , PostgreSQL Bug List Subject: Re: Bug in psql In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to Chris BSomething message dated "Mon, 03 Feb 2025 20:29:57 +0800" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <403204.1738599597.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2025 11:19:57 -0500 Message-ID: <403205.1738599597@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Chris BSomething writes: > Who exactly in user land is edified by referring to indexes as relations? They're relations because they have pg_class and pg_attribute entries. If the system catalogs were something that no user ever looked at, maybe this would not matter; but that's not how business is done with Postgres. They're also relations because they have storage. (Admittedly, there are relations that don't have storage, like views.) If we didn't collect everything with storage under the term "relation", we'd need some other term whenever we want to talk about physical files. > Surely > it's not beyond a moderately talented person to come up with something. The trick is to come up with something that will garner a consensus that it's an improvement. As mentioned already, feel free to make a concrete proposal. Don't expect that somebody else will. regards, tom lane