
>There's been a very recent change to include the OID in certain names
>in the system table.  Do a "select * from pg_amop;" to see what I
>mean: the values for amopselect and amopnpages didn't have the OID
>appended before.  Was this change intentional?  If so, I'm really
>curious as to why...  And what's the best way to find out, from SQL,
>that 'btreesel' should now be 'btreesel_1268'?

Yes, I don't like this change either. If the oid is needed it should be in a second field,
and the unique index should be ( name, theoid )

Andreas


Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:08:06 +0200
Andreas Zeugswetter <andreas.zeugswetter@telecom.at>
AW: [HACKERS] Names that suddenly include an OID
> 
> >There's been a very recent change to include the OID in certain names
> >in the system table.  Do a "select * from pg_amop;" to see what I
> >mean: the values for amopselect and amopnpages didn't have the OID
> >appended before.  Was this change intentional?  If so, I'm really
> >curious as to why...  And what's the best way to find out, from SQL,
> >that 'btreesel' should now be 'btreesel_1268'?
> 
> Yes, I don't like this change either. If the oid is needed it should be in a second field,
> and the unique index should be ( name, theoid )

Well, the problem is that it is a single column, so how to you pass two
values into a type?  You really can't split a type across two columns.

Still looking for suggestions.

-- 
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)

Fri, 11 Sep 1998 10:39:35 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: AW: [HACKERS] Names that suddenly include an OID