From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: information_schema.parameters |
Date: | 2010-05-04 08:24:39 |
Message-ID: | 1272961479.31389.1.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On tis, 2010-05-04 at 09:19 +0100, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
> 2010/5/3 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:
> > It was a convenient choice. You could propose a different method for
> > generating the specific routine name, but given that it has to fit into
> > an identifier and has to allow for function overloading, some kind of
> > number makes the most sense, in absence of any other requirements.
>
> how about just a name, with no OIDs ?
The "specific name" must be unique among functions with the same name.
> I am trying to compare two databases, and this really does get in a
> way. I think it defeats the purpose here, since I have to chop the
> numbers off.
If you want the plain name, join information_schema.parameters with
information_schema.routines and use the column routine_name.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz | 2010-05-04 08:33:33 | Re: information_schema.parameters |
Previous Message | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz | 2010-05-04 08:19:05 | Re: information_schema.parameters |