Re: Renaming sequence auto generated by SERIAL type don't update pg_attrdef

From: Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Dickson S(dot) Guedes" <listas(at)guedesoft(dot)net>, pgsql-jdbc <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Renaming sequence auto generated by SERIAL type don't update pg_attrdef
Date: 2009-03-10 04:06:57
Message-ID: 49B5E761.4060507@opencloud.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-jdbc

Tom Lane wrote:

> Hmm. The correct, pg_dump-tested way to get the default expression is
> pg_catalog.pg_get_expr(adbin, adrelid)
> but that's fairly expensive. I'm having a hard time recommending
> that you put it into DatabaseMetaData.getColumns, when probably 99.99%
> of applications won't even look at the value let alone care if it is
> stale. OTOH the joins involved are not-cheap already, so maybe this
> worry is just premature micro-optimization.

I don't think DBMD.getColumns() is expected to be called all that much,
certainly not in performance-critical paths, so perhaps the more complex
expression is the way to go. How far back, version-wise, will that
expression work?

> BTW, is there a reason for the query to be using LIKE 'name' instead of
> = 'name'? And if so, is whatever generates it smart about underscores
> and % and \ in the name?

The API lets the application specify a pattern to search on, using the
same syntax that LIKE expects, so the driver just passes it straight
through into the query (modulo normal string escaping)

-O

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-03-10 04:37:02 Re: Renaming sequence auto generated by SERIAL type don't update pg_attrdef
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-03-10 03:54:08 Re: Renaming sequence auto generated by SERIAL type don't update pg_attrdef