Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 16:59, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Surely, removing the internal name's dependency on the istrigger flag is
>> wrong. If you're going to maintain separate hash entries at the pltcl
>> level, why would you want to risk collisions underneath that?
> Good catch. I was basing it off plperl which uses the same proname
> for both (sprintf(subname, %s__%u", prodesc->proname, fn_oid)). Its
> OK for plperl because when we compile we save a reference to it and
> use that directly (more or less). The name does not really matter.
I notice that plpython is also using the trigger relation's OID, but I
don't know that language well enough to tell whether it really needs to.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2010-11-03 17:15:39|
|Subject: Fwd: Re: ALTER OBJECT any_name SET SCHEMA name|
|Previous:||From: Dimitri Fontaine||Date: 2010-11-03 16:10:12|
|Subject: Re: ALTER OBJECT any_name SET SCHEMA name|