From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: with vs without oids in pg_catalog.* |
Date: | 2004-03-31 15:55:24 |
Message-ID: | 5226.1080748524@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> writes:
> I wish I had some way of referencing objects that I need to designate
> (say, an attribute, an index, a table, a constraint, and so on).
AFAIK, all objects that you might need to designate can be identified
using the scheme employed in pg_depend and pg_description: catalog OID,
object OID, subobject number.
> So my question still is: Given the fact that I have some use for these
> oids, would it make sense to submit a patch to add them?
It will be rejected. We removed pg_attribute OIDs some time ago,
and we aren't going to put them back without a much better reason than
this. If you need a specific counterargument, here is one: pg_attribute
is normally much the largest catalog. If we required its rows to have
unique OIDs, the probability of collisions after OID-counter wraparound
would be much greater than it is in other catalogs.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-03-31 16:19:07 | Re: Some Documentation Changes |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-03-31 15:55:04 | Re: logging statement levels |