On Fri, 2012-12-14 at 00:04 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-10-02 at 10:46 -0500, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> > I am now submitting patches to the commitfest
> > for review. (I'm not sure how I missed this.)
>
> I prefer this version of the patch. I also attached an alternative
> version that m
On 12/14/2012 02:04:45 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-10-02 at 10:46 -0500, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> > I am now submitting patches to the commitfest
> > for review. (I'm not sure how I missed this.)
>
> I prefer this version of the patch. I also attached an alternative
> version that may addre
On Tue, 2012-10-02 at 10:46 -0500, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> I am now submitting patches to the commitfest
> for review. (I'm not sure how I missed this.)
I prefer this version of the patch. I also attached an alternative
version that may address Tom's concern by noting that the OIDs are
hidden in th
On 09/25/2012 12:28:13 AM, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> On 09/23/2012 08:57:45 PM, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
>
> > The attached patch documents the oid column of those
> > system catalogs having an oid.
>
> Don't use the first version of this patch (oid_doc.patch)
> without discarding the last hunk. The last
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> I think this is fundamentally wrong, or at least misleading, because it
>> documents OID as if it were an ordinary column. Somebody who did
>> "select * from pg_class" and didn't see any "oid" in the
On 09/23/2012 08:57:45 PM, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> The attached patch documents the oid column of those
> system catalogs having an oid.
Don't use the first version of this patch (oid_doc.patch)
without discarding the last hunk. The last hunk
introduces an error by duplicating the
documentation of
On 09/24/2012 08:18:00 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > It's possible that it's worth expending a boilerplate paragraph in
> each
> > of those pages to say "this catalog has OIDs" (or that it doesn't).
> > But this isn't the way.
>
> I'm afraid I disagree with
On 09/24/2012 09:38:53 AM, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> On 09/23/2012 10:14:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Karl O. Pinc" writes:
> > > The attached patch documents the oid column of those
> > > system catalogs having an oid.
> >
> > I think this is fundamentally wrong, or at least misleading,
> because
>
Tom,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> I think this is fundamentally wrong, or at least misleading, because it
> documents OID as if it were an ordinary column. Somebody who did
> "select * from pg_class" and didn't see any "oid" in the result would
> think the docs were wrong.
Given that
On 09/23/2012 10:14:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Karl O. Pinc" writes:
> > The attached patch documents the oid column of those
> > system catalogs having an oid.
>
> I think this is fundamentally wrong, or at least misleading, because
> it
> documents OID as if it were an ordinary column. Somebody
"Karl O. Pinc" writes:
> The attached patch documents the oid column of those
> system catalogs having an oid.
I think this is fundamentally wrong, or at least misleading, because it
documents OID as if it were an ordinary column. Somebody who did
"select * from pg_class" and didn't see any "oid
Hi,
The attached patch documents the oid column of those
system catalogs having an oid.
Distinguish system catalogs with an oid from those without
and make the primary key clear to the newbie.
Found catalogs with an oid by querying a 9.2 installation:
select pg_class.relkind, pg_class.relname
12 matches
Mail list logo
