Re: [HACKERS] Large objects names
От | Peter T Mount |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Large objects names |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.3.96.980806065832.793I-100000@maidast.retep.org.uk обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Large objects names (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Large objects names
Re: [HACKERS] Large objects names |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Currently, large objects are stored internally as xinv### and xinx###. > > I would like to rename this for 6.4 to be _lobject_### to prevent > namespace collisions, and make them clearer for administrators. > > However, this may cause problems for backward compatability for large > object users. As I see there are going to be other new large object > things in 6.4, it may not be an issue. > > Is is OK to rename them internally? Shouldn't be a problem. JDBC does refer to the xin prefix with the getTables method, so it's simply a single change there. -- Peter T Mount peter@retep.org.uk or petermount@earthling.net Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk PostgreSQL JDBC Faq: http://www.retep.org.uk/postgres
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: