| 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: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: OID wraparound (was Re: pg_depend) |
| Date: | 2001-07-19 00:00:10 |
| Message-ID: | 200107190000.f6J00AF05219@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Remember most pg_description comments are not on column but on functions
> > and stuff. That attributenumber is not going to apply there.
>
> Sure, it'd just be zero for non-column items.
What do we do with other columns that need descriptions and don't have
oid column. Make the attribute column mean something else? I just
don't see a huge gain here and lots of confusion. User tables are a
different story.
--
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 | Tom Lane | 2001-07-19 00:13:33 | Re: OID wraparound (was Re: pg_depend) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-07-18 23:55:52 | Re: OID wraparound (was Re: pg_depend) |