Re: obj_unique_identifier(oid)
От | Andreas Karlsson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: obj_unique_identifier(oid) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1294529727.27439.9.camel@jansson обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: obj_unique_identifier(oid) (Joel Jacobson <joel@gluefinance.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: obj_unique_identifier(oid)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 22:21 +0100, Joel Jacobson wrote: > 2011/1/8 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: