| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Pro et contra of preserving pg_proc oids during pg_upgrade |
| Date: | 2023-10-13 06:14:54 |
| Message-ID: | 54121d8abf6440d46daa91528c4df8c0fc29f7cd.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2023-10-12 at 19:56 +0300, Nikita Malakhov wrote:
> Say, we have data processed by some user function and we want to keep reference to this function
> in our data. In this case we have two ways - first - store string output of regprocedure, which is not
> very convenient, and the second - store its OID, which requires slight modification of pg_upgrade
> (pg_dump and func/procedure creation function).
So far, we have lived quite well with the rule "don't store any system OIDs in the database
if you want to pg_upgrade" (views on system objects, reg* data types, ...).
What is inconvenient about storing the output of regprocedure?
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jian he | 2023-10-13 06:26:01 | Re: [PATCH] Add support function for containment operators |
| Previous Message | Vik Fearing | 2023-10-13 06:01:08 | Re: Tab completion for AT TIME ZONE |