Re: oids vs composite types, in cvs head

From: Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: andrew(at)supernews(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: oids vs composite types, in cvs head
Date: 2005-07-06 03:22:37
Message-ID: 20050706032237.GA1137@winnie.fuhr.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 10:55:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews(at)supernews(dot)com> writes:
> > This works on 7.4 and 8.0 but not in cvs head:
> > create function foo(pg_type) returns oid as 'select $1.oid' language sql;
> > ERROR: column "oid" not found in data type pg_type
> > CONTEXT: SQL function "foo"
>
> > Is this intentional, or did the no-oids-by-default changes cut too deep?
>
> Hmm ... offhand, I'd say that if it worked in 8.0 it was only by chance.
> In general a tuple that matches the signature of a pg_type row need not
> contain an OID. Still it does seem that we have broken some specific
> cases that used to work. Anyone want to dig into the details?

It fails for any system column -- weren't there some changes recently
in how system columns are handled?

--
Michael Fuhr
http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Fuhr 2005-07-06 03:28:49 Re: oids vs composite types, in cvs head
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2005-07-06 03:11:01 Re: [HACKERS] Dbsize backend integration