| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Refactor recordExtObjInitPriv() |
| Date: | 2023-01-12 17:20:50 |
| Message-ID: | 1136333.1673544050@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 12.01.23 01:04, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> - classoid == AggregateRelationId ||
>> I noticed that AggregateRelationId isn't listed in the ObjectProperty
>> array, so I think recordExtObjInitPriv() will begin erroring for that
>> classoid instead of ignoring it like we do today.
> Hmm, we do have some extensions in contrib that add aggregates (citext,
> intagg). I suspect that the aggregate function is actually registered
> into the extension via its pg_proc entry, so this wouldn't actually
> matter. But maybe the commenting should be clearer?
Yeah, I don't believe that AggregateRelationId is used in object
addresses; we just refer to pg_proc for any kind of function including
aggregates. Note that there is no "oid" column in pg_aggregate.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-01-12 17:23:29 | Re: Remove nonmeaningful prefixes in PgStat_* fields |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2023-01-12 17:18:31 | Re: on placeholder entries in view rule action query's range table |