Re: regdatabase

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: regdatabase
Date: 2025-05-07 04:03:14
Message-ID: 3244324.1746590594@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> * Would anyone object if I put together some patches to add regdatabase?

The original concept of the reg* types was to implement lookups for
cases that are more complicated than "(SELECT oid FROM pg_foo WHERE
fooname = 'whatever')". As an example, regprocedure would be
somewhere between seriously painful and impossible to do by hand.
But any potentially-schema-qualified object name is complicated
enough to justify having a reg* type, in the original vision.

However, we've broken that of late with regnamespace and regrole.
regdatabase would be of exactly the same complexity as those
cases. So I don't see a reason to object, if you think it's
worth the trouble.

regards, tom lane

In response to

  • regdatabase at 2025-05-06 19:29:42 from Nathan Bossart

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2025-05-07 04:34:12 Re: disabled SSL log_like tests
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2025-05-07 03:52:22 Re: disabled SSL log_like tests