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

Re: with vs without oids in pg_catalog.*

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: with vs without oids in pg_catalog.*
Date: 2004-03-31 15:55:24
Message-ID: 5226.1080748524@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> writes:
> I wish I had some way of referencing objects that I need to designate
> (say, an attribute, an index, a table, a constraint, and so on).

AFAIK, all objects that you might need to designate can be identified
using the scheme employed in pg_depend and pg_description: catalog OID,
object OID, subobject number.

> So my question still is: Given the fact that I have some use for these
> oids, would it make sense to submit a patch to add them?

It will be rejected.  We removed pg_attribute OIDs some time ago,
and we aren't going to put them back without a much better reason than
this.  If you need a specific counterargument, here is one: pg_attribute
is normally much the largest catalog.  If we required its rows to have
unique OIDs, the probability of collisions after OID-counter wraparound
would be much greater than it is in other catalogs.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-03-31 16:19:07
Subject: Re: Some Documentation Changes
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-03-31 15:55:04
Subject: Re: logging statement levels

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