2010/12/7 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> 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.
>
I had to solve similar task, and probably I am not alone. Can pg
supports some cache and some API for "custom oid"? Now, a work with
custom types on C level is little bit unfriendly. There isn't a
problem with builtin types - these are well defined. I agree, so
direct access to oids for custom types isn't a good idea. But some
general API or pattern can be nice - mainly for client side.
regards
Pavel
> regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>