Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Proposed p.tch for sequence-renaming problems

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposed p.tch for sequence-renaming problems
Date: 2005-09-28 04:14:19
Message-ID: 1726.1127880859@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> Why did you rename the C function nextval() to nextval_text()?

I did that deliberately to make sure I'd catch all the dependencies.
If you like we can argue about whether to undo that aspect of the
patch --- it's surely not very critical --- but my vision of the future
path of development is that the text variant will go away entirely.
So I didn't like the idea of having "nextval" and "nextval_oid";
seems like that gives pride of place to the wrong thing.

> As an unrelated note, since we are going to force an initdb for the next
> beta, it would be nice to include the 64 bit parameter to pg_control ...

See other thread.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tatsuo IshiiDate: 2005-09-28 05:09:47
Subject: enhanced pgbench
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2005-09-28 03:59:34
Subject: Re: Proposed p.tch for sequence-renaming problems

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Dave PageDate: 2005-09-28 12:43:22
Subject: Re: Making pgxs builds work with a relocated installation
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2005-09-28 03:59:34
Subject: Re: Proposed p.tch for sequence-renaming problems

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group