| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Simplifying OID lookups in the presence of namespaces |
| Date: | 2002-04-23 03:46:34 |
| Message-ID: | 3768.1019533594@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also, for functions and operators the name alone is not sufficient to
>> uniquely identify the object. Type regproc currently throws an error
>> if asked to convert a nonunique function name; that severely limits its
>> usefulness. I'm toying with allowing datatypes in the input string,
>> eg
>> 'sum(bigint)'::regproc
>> but I wonder if this will create compatibility problems. In particular,
>> should the regproc and regoperator output converters include datatype
>> indicators in the output string? (Always, never, only if not unique?)
> I'd be inclined to include datatype always. If you don't, how can you
> use this for pg_dump, etc?
pg_dump would probably actually prefer not having type info in the
output string; it'll just have to strip it off in most places. But
I don't have a good feeling for the needs of other applications,
so I was asking what other people thought.
If we supported both ways via two datatypes, we'd have all the bases
covered; I'm just wondering if it's worth the trouble.
regards, tom lane
PS: interesting thought about enum ...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-23 04:33:18 | I am back |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2002-04-23 03:35:03 | Re: Simplifying OID lookups in the presence of namespaces |