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

Re: [HACKERS] [QUESTIONS] builtin lo_unlink(int4)? why int4 not oid?

From: Chul Su Park <pcs(at)bmail(dot)kek(dot)jp>
To: psqlhack(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk (Peter T Mount)
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pcs(at)bmail(dot)kek(dot)jp
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [QUESTIONS] builtin lo_unlink(int4)? why int4 not oid?
Date: 1998-06-13 10:20:35
Message-ID: 199806131020.TAA19381@bwg02.kek.jp (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > 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(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk or petermount(at)earthling(dot)net


foo=> select count(lo_unlink(raster::int4)) from bar;
ERROR:  function int4(oid) does not exist

I'm using v6.3.2(patched) on SunSolaris/Redhat5.0

Best Regards, C.S.Park


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter T MountDate: 1998-06-13 11:31:33
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [QUESTIONS] builtin lo_unlink(int4)? why int4 not oid?
Previous:From: Peter T MountDate: 1998-06-13 10:05:19
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Odd behavior in regression test?

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