| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_depend |
| Date: | 2001-07-16 23:25:27 |
| Message-ID: | 200107162325.f6GNPRD12763@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> The objects would need to be identified by two-part IDs, one part
> specifying the object type and one giving its OID (which is known unique
> within that type). Possibly object type would be best handled by giving
> the OID of the system catalog containing the object's definition row.
> In any case, looking at the type part would let users of the pg_depend
> catalog figure out what they needed to do.
Yes, exactly. Also, I can see code that will handles dependencies
differently if it is a pg_class or pg_type row that is mentioned in
pg_depend.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bill Studenmund | 2001-07-16 23:29:58 | Re: pg_depend |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-07-16 23:23:36 | Re: pg_depend |