Re: with vs without oids in pg_catalog.*
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: with vs without oids in pg_catalog.* |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5226.1080748524@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: with vs without oids in pg_catalog.* (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>) |
Ответы |
Re: with vs without oids in pg_catalog.*
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> writes: > I wish I had some way of referencing objects that I need to designate > (say, an attribute, an index, a table, a constraint, and so on). AFAIK, all objects that you might need to designate can be identified using the scheme employed in pg_depend and pg_description: catalog OID, object OID, subobject number. > So my question still is: Given the fact that I have some use for these > oids, would it make sense to submit a patch to add them? It will be rejected. We removed pg_attribute OIDs some time ago, and we aren't going to put them back without a much better reason than this. If you need a specific counterargument, here is one: pg_attribute is normally much the largest catalog. If we required its rows to have unique OIDs, the probability of collisions after OID-counter wraparound would be much greater than it is in other catalogs. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: