(2013/07/04 3:58), Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Since pg_relpages(oid) doesn't exist, pg_relpages() is in the same
>>> situation as pgstatindex(), i.e., we cannot just replace pg_relpages(text)
>>> with pg_relpages(regclass) for the backward-compatibility. How do you
>>> think we should solve the pg_relpages() problem? Rename? Just
>>> add pg_relpages(regclass)?
>>
>> Adding a function with a new name seems likely to be smoother, since
>> that way you don't have to worry about problems with function calls
>> being thought ambiguous.
>
> Could you let me know the example that this problem happens?
>
> For the test, I just implemented the regclass-version of pg_relpages()
> (patch attached) and tested some cases. But I could not get that problem.
>
> SELECT pg_relpages('hoge'); -- OK
> SELECT pg_relpages(oid) FROM pg_class WHERE relname = 'hoge'; -- OK
> SELECT pg_relpages(relname) FROM pg_class WHERE relname = 'hoge'; -- OK
In the attached patch, I cleaned up three functions to have
two types of arguments for each, text and regclass.
pgstattuple(text)
pgstattuple(regclass)
pgstatindex(text)
pgstatindex(regclass)
pg_relpages(text)
pg_relpages(regclass)
I still think a regclass argument is more appropriate for passing
relation/index name to a function than text-type, but having both
arguments in each function seems to be a good choice at this moment,
in terms of backward-compatibility.
Docs needs to be updated if this change going to be applied.
Any comments?
--
Satoshi Nagayasu <snaga@uptime.jp>
Uptime Technologies, LLC. http://www.uptime.jp