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?

-- 
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)

Wed, 5 Aug 1998 23:53:58 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Large objects names
> 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?

I will probably keep the current names for a few releases.  Once
interfaces start using the relkind field to identify them, rather than
the xinv* naming, I will be able to change the names to anything else
and no external interface will care.

-- 
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)

Thu, 6 Aug 1998 01:27:53 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Large objects names
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.

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


Thu, 6 Aug 1998 06:59:49 +0100 (GMT)
Peter T Mount <peter@retep.org.uk>
Re: [HACKERS] Large objects names


Peter T Mount 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.
>

The same goes for ODBC.


Thu, 06 Aug 1998 09:14:44 -0400
David Hartwig <daveh@insightdist.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Large objects names
> 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.

So does ODBC.  Let's start using relkind = 'l', then I can change the
name in a later release, and no one will see the change.

-- 
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)

Thu, 6 Aug 1998 11:34:09 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Large objects names
> 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.

-- 
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)

Thu, 6 Aug 1998 11:35:03 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
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@retep.org.uk or petermount@earthling.net
Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk
PostgreSQL JDBC Faq: http://www.retep.org.uk/postgres


Thu, 6 Aug 1998 18:42:38 +0100 (GMT)
Peter T Mount <peter@retep.org.uk>
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.

Yes.  Older odbc/java/psql interfaces still use the xinv pattern to
restrict table lists.  As new interfaces use relkind, I can then change
the internal name.
-- 
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)

Thu, 6 Aug 1998 19:10:49 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Large objects names