> 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?
I will probably keep the current names for a few releases. Once
interfaces start using the relkind field to identify them, rather than
the xinv* naming, I will be able to change the names to anything else
and no external interface will care.
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter T Mount||Date: 1998-08-06 05:34:55|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CVS and the backend|
|Previous:||From: Vadim Mikheev||Date: 1998-08-06 05:19:58|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Large objects|
pgsql-interfaces by date
|Next:||From: Peter T Mount||Date: 1998-08-06 05:59:49|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Large objects names|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 1998-08-06 03:53:58|
|Subject: Large objects names|