AW: [HACKERS] Names that suddenly include an OID

From: Andreas Zeugswetter <andreas(dot)zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at>
To: "'Tom Ivar Helbekkmo'" <tih(at)nhh(dot)no>
Cc: "'hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: AW: [HACKERS] Names that suddenly include an OID
Date: 1998-09-11 09:08:06
Message-ID: 01BDDD75.589B5950@zeugswettera.user.lan.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


>There's been a very recent change to include the OID in certain names
>in the system table. Do a "select * from pg_amop;" to see what I
>mean: the values for amopselect and amopnpages didn't have the OID
>appended before. Was this change intentional? If so, I'm really
>curious as to why... And what's the best way to find out, from SQL,
>that 'btreesel' should now be 'btreesel_1268'?

Yes, I don't like this change either. If the oid is needed it should be in a second field,
and the unique index should be ( name, theoid )

Andreas

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 1998-09-11 14:02:29 pg_user problem
Previous Message Tom Ivar Helbekkmo 1998-09-11 08:36:57 Names that suddenly include an OID