From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: duplicate function oid symbols |
Date: | 2020-10-28 19:24:20 |
Message-ID: | 1443774.1603913060@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2020-10-28 14:49:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Moreover, this clearly shows the
>> effect John mentioned that people have been copying the style of adjacent
>> entries rather than making use of the standard oid_symbol convention like
>> they should --- some of these don't exist in the initial v11 version of
>> pg_type.dat.
> Wonder if it's worth using something like 'backward_compat_oid_symbol'
> and rejecting plain oid_symbol references for pg_type? That'd perhaps be
> less likely to be copied?
Nah. What I'm imagining is just that pg_type.h contains
#ifdef EXPOSE_TO_CLIENT_CODE
/*
* Backwards compatibility for ancient random spellings of OID macros.
* Don't use these macros in new code.
*/
#define CASHOID MONEYOID
#define LSNOID PG_LSNOID
#endif
and then the negotiation here is only about whether to make this list
longer. We don't need to complicate genbki.pl with a new facility.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2020-10-28 19:27:12 | Re: libpq compression |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-10-28 19:18:52 | Re: Add important info about ANALYZE after create Functional Index |