| From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | with vs without oids in pg_catalog.* |
| Date: | 2004-03-30 13:16:01 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58.0403301459150.2084@sablons.cri.ensmp.fr |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dear hackers,
I'm still trying to play with pg_catalog relations.
I notice that some tables in pg_catalog have oids, and some do not have
them (e.g. pg_attribute, pg_group, pg_shadow...). Also convenient
user-oriented views could reproduce the oid of their parent table
(e.g. pg_user if pg_shadow had an oid).
This situation makes referencing such elements a little bit inhomogeneous.
Is there a strong backend rational behind these missing features,
or would it be possible to suggest some additions in this area?
I may imagine some behind the seen updates which could need to be updated,
but I cannot seen any major reason why this could not and should not be
done...
So my question is : would it be reasonnable to submit a new "posgres.bki"
version, by dropping some "without_oids" in some declarations??
--
Fabien Coelho - coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Pflug | 2004-03-30 13:24:57 | Re: pg_advisor schema proof of concept |
| Previous Message | Dennis Haney | 2004-03-30 13:06:21 | Hash cost |