Re: type conversion discussion
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: type conversion discussion |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.21.0005152105490.349-100000@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: type conversion discussion (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: type conversion discussion
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes: > > The fact that an oid is also a number should be an implementation detail. > > Could be. A version or three ago you actually did have to write > > ... where oid = 1234::oid > > if you wanted to refer to a specific row by OID. However, while it > might be logically purer to insist that OIDs are not numbers, it's just > too damn handy to be laxer about the distinction. Definitely. But wouldn't three (or six) extra `=' operators be the road of least resistance or clearest separation? Not sure. > I doubt that ordinary users touch OIDs at all, and the ones who do > probably know what they're doing. Certain elements around these parts actively advocate using oids for keys or even unsigned numbers (*shudder*). I wouldn't be so sure about this statement at all. One thing to keep in mind in any case is that oids might not be int4-like forever, eventually we might want int8, or the unsigned version thereof. -- Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115 peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: