| From: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)gluefinance(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(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: | 2011-01-08 21:21:53 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimpssYzD5VTq2--W+OuJkfcam_+2yLQoY=NiA7B@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2011/1/8 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> I don't think your analysis is correct. Each entry in pg_depend
> represents the fact that one object depends on another object, and an
> object could easily depend on more than one other object, or be
> depended upon by more than one other object, or depend on one object
> and be depended on by another.
What does that have to do with this?
Two different oids represents two different objects, right?
Two different objects should have two different descriptions, right?
Otherwise I cannot see how one can argue the description being unique.
The pg_describe_object returns unique descriptions for all object
types, except for the 5 types I unexpectedly found.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2011-01-08 21:28:13 | Re: DISCARD ALL ; stored procedures |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-01-08 21:10:47 | SSI patch(es) |