Re: AW: [HACKERS] Names that suddenly include an OID

>
> >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 )

Well, the problem is that it is a single column, so how to you pass two
values into a type? You really can't split a type across two columns.

Still looking for suggestions.

--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)