| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)gluefinance(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Herrera Alvaro <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: obj_unique_identifier(oid) |
| Date: | 2011-01-09 01:39:47 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimTPZiDmurBC26ncQEH4EvxhH=V2-jZ-U=joni9@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)gluefinance(dot)com> wrote:
> 2011/1/9 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>> Oops. I misread your query. I thought the duplicates were because
>> you were feeding pg_describe_object the same classoid, objoid,
>> objsubid pair more than once, but I see now that's not the case (UNION
>> != UNION ALL).
>
> Ah, I see, yes, the query should actually be UNION, it would produce
> the same result, but perhaps it would be a bit faster.
You did use UNION - I think if you used UNION ALL you'd get spurious
results. But maybe I'm still confused.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2011-01-09 02:12:00 | Re: WIP: Range Types |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-09 01:36:48 | Re: WIP: Range Types |