On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 05:06:09PM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On 9/18/06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >Hmm ... I was thinking it didn't matter, but on closer look, the
> >int4->oid cast is implicit while the oid->int4 one is only assignment.
> >So you'd need to write a cast to pass an OID if we declare the functions
> >as taking int4. But you'll need a cast anyway if you want to pass a
> >single OID to the int8-taking version (that's an assignment cast too).
> >
> >The downside of declaring the functions to take OID is that people might
> >think they could *only* use OIDs, which isn't so, they can use any
> >int4-sized key they feel like.
>
> hm. this is really a byproduct of oid being the catchall unsigned int4
> type since it has the most built in casts. i agree 100% though on the
> oid perception however, i don't like userland oids at all, until such
> time as an 8 bit one comes out. i would say leave as int4 unless you
> were willing to sql typedef the oid to some other name.
Would adding OID versions of the functions (so there'd be int8, (int4,
int4) and (oid,oid)) be overkill?
--
Jim Nasby jimn@enterprisedb.com
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)