Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE parent SET WITHOUT OIDS and the oid column

Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Right. But I think it's better to use attribute id, in case the code
> raising this error changes for any reason in future.

I agree.  The parent's "tdhasoid" flag is definitely based on the
existence of an ObjectIdAttributeNumber system column, not on whether the
column's name is "oid".  So doing a lookup by name to find the matching
child column is just weird, and cannot possibly lead to anything good.

> The code updating attinhcount and then updating the catalogs is same
> for user defined attributes and OID. Should we separate it out into a
> function and use that function instead of duplicating the code?

Didn't really seem worth the trouble ... maybe if it gets any longer
it'd be appropriate to do that.

> Your test uses tablenames starting with "_". I have not seen that
> style in the testcases. Is it intentional?

Yeah, I did not like that either.

Pushed with those corrections and some further fooling with the test case.
        regards, tom lane