Re: CLASSOID patch
От | Chris Bitmead |
---|---|
Тема | Re: CLASSOID patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3956CD08.8124E5EB@nimrod.itg.telecom.com.au обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: CLASSOID patch (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: CLASSOID patch
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Chris Bitmead writes: > > > Attached is a first attempt at implementing the classoid feature. > > I'm wondering what other people think about the naming. Firstly, it's my > feeling that TABLEOID would be more in line with the general conventions. I was thinking this myself today. Mainly because I wonder if in the future there may be support for more than one table implementing a particular class type. On the other hand the oid is a reference to the pg_class table. Maybe pg_class should be renamed pg_table? Anyway, my current thinking is that tableoid is better. The general naming conventions in postgres are a bit disturbing. Some places refer to classes, some to tables, some to relations. One day it should all be reconciled :-). > Secondly, maybe we ought to make the name less susceptible to collision by > choosing a something like _CLASSOID (or whatever). Only if oid becomes _oid and ctid becomes _ctid. I don't think it's worth it myself. > > It works! > > Great! :)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: