From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: describe objects, as in pg_depend |
Date: | 2010-11-17 15:47:41 |
Message-ID: | 27135.1290008861@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mi nov 17 12:20:06 -0300 2010:
>> What's the point of the InvalidOid check?
> If the check is not there, the calling query will have to prevent the
> function from being called on rows having OID=0 in pg_depend. (These
> rows show up in the catalog for pinned objects).
Hmm. It would be good to document that motivation somewhere. Also,
for my own taste it would be better to do
/* for "pinned" items in pg_depend, return null */
if (!OidIsValid(catalogId))
PG_RETURN_NULL();
... straight line code here ...
rather than leave the reader wondering whether there are any other cases
where the function is intended to return null.
Oh, one other gripe: probably better to name it pg_describe_object.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Markus Wanner | 2010-11-17 15:58:01 | Re: changing MyDatabaseId |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-11-17 15:43:00 | Re: Indent authentication overloading |