Re: [HACKERS] Large objects names

On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > Currently, large objects are stored internally as xinv### and xinx###.
> > >
> > > I would like to rename this for 6.4 to be _lobject_### to prevent
> > > namespace collisions, and make them clearer for administrators.
> > >
> > > However, this may cause problems for backward compatability for large
> > > object users. As I see there are going to be other new large object
> > > things in 6.4, it may not be an issue.
> > >
> > > Is is OK to rename them internally?
> >
> > Shouldn't be a problem. JDBC does refer to the xin prefix with the
> > getTables method, so it's simply a single change there.
>
> I am suggesting changes in later releases to older interfaces can
> communicated with 6.4 without any problems.

That sounds ok.

--
Peter T Mount peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk or petermount(at)earthling(dot)net
Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk
PostgreSQL JDBC Faq: http://www.retep.org.uk/postgres