| 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
| 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 |