| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)gluefinance(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Herrera Alvaro <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: obj_unique_identifier(oid) |
| Date: | 2011-01-09 00:14:11 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=AWjYqU2yhNG3ca6cdP-+9J5FouoHZ1SEXJE4_@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)gluefinance(dot)com> wrote:
> 2011/1/8 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>> I don't think your analysis is correct. Each entry in pg_depend
>> represents the fact that one object depends on another object, and an
>> object could easily depend on more than one other object, or be
>> depended upon by more than one other object, or depend on one object
>> and be depended on by another.
>
> What does that have to do with this?
Oops. I misread your query. I thought the duplicates were because
you were feeding pg_describe_object the same classoid, objoid,
objsubid pair more than once, but I see now that's not the case (UNION
!= UNION ALL).
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2011-01-09 00:43:17 | Re: obj_unique_identifier(oid) |
| Previous Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2011-01-08 23:35:27 | Re: obj_unique_identifier(oid) |