On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 22:21 +0100, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> 2011/1/8 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.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?
>
> Two different oids represents two different objects, right?
> Two different objects should have two different descriptions, right?
> Otherwise I cannot see how one can argue the description being unique.
>
> The pg_describe_object returns unique descriptions for all object
> types, except for the 5 types I unexpectedly found.
I can confirm it has nothing to do with pg_depend, and that it seems to
be a bug with that descriptions do not seem to care about different
amproclefttype and amprocrighttype.
SELECT array_agg(oid), array_agg(amproclefttype) FROM pg_amproc GROUP BY
pg_catalog.pg_describe_object(2603,oid,0) HAVING count(*) > 1;
One example row produced by that query.
array_agg | array_agg
---------------+-------------
{10608,10612} | {1009,1015}
(1 row)
Regards,
Andreas Karlsson
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
