On tis, 2010-05-04 at 09:19 +0100, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
> 2010/5/3 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>:
> > It was a convenient choice. You could propose a different method for
> > generating the specific routine name, but given that it has to fit into
> > an identifier and has to allow for function overloading, some kind of
> > number makes the most sense, in absence of any other requirements.
>
> how about just a name, with no OIDs ?
The "specific name" must be unique among functions with the same name.
> I am trying to compare two databases, and this really does get in a
> way. I think it defeats the purpose here, since I have to chop the
> numbers off.
If you want the plain name, join information_schema.parameters with
information_schema.routines and use the column routine_name.