Re: duplicate function oid symbols

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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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


* Backwards compatibility for ancient random spellings of OID macros.
* Don't use these macros in new code.


and then the negotiation here is only about whether to make this list
longer. We don't need to complicate with a new facility.

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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