Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Say what? �He didn't say that, he said "don't assume that user-defined
>> types have hard-wired OIDs".
> Well, you're right, strictly speaking. Of course, the OP is not
> assuming it, he is enforcing it.
No, he's wishing he could enforce it. Which will work, mostly, until
the day it doesn't because of a pre-existing collision. And then he'll
be up the creek with a lot of software that he can't fix readily. I
concur with Andrew's advice: don't go there in the first place. Use a
cache to mitigate the costs of looking up user-defined OIDs, and you
won't regret it later.
regards, tom lane