Re: [HACKERS] [QUESTIONS] builtin lo_unlink(int4)? why int4 not oid?
От | Chul Su Park |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] [QUESTIONS] builtin lo_unlink(int4)? why int4 not oid? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 199806131020.TAA19381@bwg02.kek.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] [QUESTIONS] builtin lo_unlink(int4)? why int4 not oid? (Peter T Mount <psqlhack@retep.org.uk>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] [QUESTIONS] builtin lo_unlink(int4)? why int4 not oid?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> > foo=> select lo_unlink(raster) from image; > > ERROR: function int4(oid) does not exist > > > > Why builtin "lo_unlink" is defined as accepting int4 not oid? Then do I > > have to do > > foo=> select lo_unlink(int4(oid_text(raster))) from image; > > OR > > define "raster" as int4? I don't think all these are good idea... Then > > how to delete "lo" in the "psql"? > > I've just tested this, and I get the same thing (on 6.3.2, and yesterdays > CVS versions). > > lo_unlink should be defined with oid (which I thought was the case). > > A temporary way round is: > > select lo_unlink(raster::int4) from image; > > Hackers: Is there any reason why it's defined as an int4? > > -- > Peter T Mount peter@retep.org.uk or petermount@earthling.net foo=> select count(lo_unlink(raster::int4)) from bar; ERROR: function int4(oid) does not exist I'm using v6.3.2(patched) on SunSolaris/Redhat5.0 Best Regards, C.S.Park
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: