| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Pro et contra of preserving pg_proc oids during pg_upgrade |
| Date: | 2023-10-12 17:24:17 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwajchbptpSk-vRVN95BymYhAaib-fh4T_cHs-2mDXYgjQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 9:57 AM Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Say, we have data processed by some user function and we want to keep
> reference to this function
> in our data.
>
Then you need to keep the user-visible identifier of said function
(schema+name+input argument types - you'd probably want to incorporate
version into the name) in your user-space code. Exposing runtime generated
oids to user-space is not something I can imagine the system supporting.
It goes against the very definition of "implementation detail" that
user-space code is not supposed to depend upon.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2023-10-12 17:28:57 | Re: Eager page freeze criteria clarification |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-10-12 17:01:05 | Re: Separate memory contexts for relcache and catcache |