From: | Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Oid registry |
Date: | 2012-09-25 09:19:31 |
Message-ID: | CAP7QgmnZVuJdV0iaPMCiYmN+F4dfqwutemBrBesirpYWWOwvXg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 24 September 2012 21:26, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>> Well, an obvious case is how record_to_json handles fields. If it knows
>> nothing about the type all it can do is output the string value. That
>> doesn't work well for types such as hstore. If it could reliably recognize a
>> field as an hstore it might well be able to do lots better.
>
> I think we're missing something in the discussion here.
>
> Why can't you find out the oid of the type by looking it up by name?
> That mechanism is used throughout postgres already and seems to work
> just fine.
>
Sure, but how do you know the type named "hstore" is what you know as
hstore? We don't have a global consensus a specific type name means
exactly what everyone thinks it is.
Thanks,
--
Hitoshi Harada
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-09-25 10:13:10 | Re: Oid registry |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2012-09-25 08:55:29 | Re: pg_reorg in core? |