Re: [HACKERS] [QUESTIONS] builtin lo_unlink(int4)? why int4 not oid?
От | Peter T Mount |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] [QUESTIONS] builtin lo_unlink(int4)? why int4 not oid? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.3.95.980613104415.16365A-100000@retep.org.uk обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | [QUESTIONS] builtin lo_unlink(int4)? why int4 not oid? ("Park, Chul-Su" <pcs@mhlx01.kek.jp>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] [QUESTIONS] builtin lo_unlink(int4)? why int4 not oid?
Re: [HACKERS] [QUESTIONS] builtin lo_unlink(int4)? why int4 not oid? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Park, Chul-Su wrote: > Hello all, > > e.g. > > I want to delete a large object with this table > > CREATE TABLE image ( > name text, > raster oid > ); > > -- from programmer's guide > > in the psql > > 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 Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk ************ Someday I may rebuild this signature completely ;-) ************ Work Homepage: http://www.maidstone.gov.uk Work EMail: peter@maidstone.gov.uk
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: