Re: Oid registry

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Oid registry
Date: 2012-09-25 02:26:46
Message-ID: 50611666.6030804@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 09/24/2012 09:37 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 18:59 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> This rather overdue mail arises out the developer's meeting back in
>> May, where we discussed an item I raised suggesting an Oid registry.
>>
>> The idea came from some difficulties I encountered when I did the
>> backport of the JSON work we did in 9.2 to 9.1, but has wider
>> application. Say someone writes an extension that defines type A. You
>> want to write an extension that takes advantage of that type, but it's
>> difficult if you don't know the type's Oid,
> Could you fill the rest of us in with some technical details about why
> this might be necessary and what it aims to achieve?

Well, an obvious case is how record_to_json handles fields. If it knows
nothing about the type all it can do is output the string value. That
doesn't work well for types such as hstore. If it could reliably
recognize a field as an hstore it might well be able to do lots better.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Karl O. Pinc 2012-09-25 02:32:14 Re: Doc patch to note which system catalogs have oids
Previous Message Brian Weaver 2012-09-25 02:26:42 Re: Patch: incorrect array offset in backend replication tar header