Обсуждение: Large objects names
Currently, large objects are stored internally as xinv### and xinx###. I would like to rename this for 6.4 to be _lobject_### to prevent namespace collisions, and make them clearer for administrators. However, this may cause problems for backward compatability for large object users. As I see there are going to be other new large object things in 6.4, it may not be an issue. Is is OK to rename them internally? -- Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 + If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w) + Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
> Currently, large objects are stored internally as xinv### and xinx###. > > I would like to rename this for 6.4 to be _lobject_### to prevent > namespace collisions, and make them clearer for administrators. > > However, this may cause problems for backward compatability for large > object users. As I see there are going to be other new large object > things in 6.4, it may not be an issue. > > Is is OK to rename them internally? I will probably keep the current names for a few releases. Once interfaces start using the relkind field to identify them, rather than the xinv* naming, I will be able to change the names to anything else and no external interface will care. -- Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 + If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w) + Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Currently, large objects are stored internally as xinv### and xinx###. > > I would like to rename this for 6.4 to be _lobject_### to prevent > namespace collisions, and make them clearer for administrators. > > However, this may cause problems for backward compatability for large > object users. As I see there are going to be other new large object > things in 6.4, it may not be an issue. > > Is is OK to rename them internally? Shouldn't be a problem. JDBC does refer to the xin prefix with the getTables method, so it's simply a single change there. -- Peter T Mount peter@retep.org.uk or petermount@earthling.net Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk PostgreSQL JDBC Faq: http://www.retep.org.uk/postgres
Peter T Mount wrote: > On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Currently, large objects are stored internally as xinv### and xinx###. > > > > I would like to rename this for 6.4 to be _lobject_### to prevent > > namespace collisions, and make them clearer for administrators. > > > > However, this may cause problems for backward compatability for large > > object users. As I see there are going to be other new large object > > things in 6.4, it may not be an issue. > > > > Is is OK to rename them internally? > > Shouldn't be a problem. JDBC does refer to the xin prefix with the > getTables method, so it's simply a single change there. > The same goes for ODBC.
> On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Currently, large objects are stored internally as xinv### and xinx###. > > > > I would like to rename this for 6.4 to be _lobject_### to prevent > > namespace collisions, and make them clearer for administrators. > > > > However, this may cause problems for backward compatability for large > > object users. As I see there are going to be other new large object > > things in 6.4, it may not be an issue. > > > > Is is OK to rename them internally? > > Shouldn't be a problem. JDBC does refer to the xin prefix with the > getTables method, so it's simply a single change there. I am suggesting changes in later releases to older interfaces can communicated with 6.4 without any problems. -- Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 + If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w) + Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
> On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Currently, large objects are stored internally as xinv### and xinx###. > > > > I would like to rename this for 6.4 to be _lobject_### to prevent > > namespace collisions, and make them clearer for administrators. > > > > However, this may cause problems for backward compatability for large > > object users. As I see there are going to be other new large object > > things in 6.4, it may not be an issue. > > > > Is is OK to rename them internally? > > Shouldn't be a problem. JDBC does refer to the xin prefix with the > getTables method, so it's simply a single change there. So does ODBC. Let's start using relkind = 'l', then I can change the name in a later release, and no one will see the change. -- Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 + If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w) + Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > Currently, large objects are stored internally as xinv### and xinx###. > > > > > > I would like to rename this for 6.4 to be _lobject_### to prevent > > > namespace collisions, and make them clearer for administrators. > > > > > > However, this may cause problems for backward compatability for large > > > object users. As I see there are going to be other new large object > > > things in 6.4, it may not be an issue. > > > > > > Is is OK to rename them internally? > > > > Shouldn't be a problem. JDBC does refer to the xin prefix with the > > getTables method, so it's simply a single change there. > > I am suggesting changes in later releases to older interfaces can > communicated with 6.4 without any problems. That sounds ok. -- Peter T Mount peter@retep.org.uk or petermount@earthling.net Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk PostgreSQL JDBC Faq: http://www.retep.org.uk/postgres
> On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > > Currently, large objects are stored internally as xinv### and xinx###. > > > > > > > > I would like to rename this for 6.4 to be _lobject_### to prevent > > > > namespace collisions, and make them clearer for administrators. > > > > > > > > However, this may cause problems for backward compatability for large > > > > object users. As I see there are going to be other new large object > > > > things in 6.4, it may not be an issue. > > > > > > > > Is is OK to rename them internally? > > > > > > Shouldn't be a problem. JDBC does refer to the xin prefix with the > > > getTables method, so it's simply a single change there. > > > > I am suggesting changes in later releases to older interfaces can > > communicated with 6.4 without any problems. > > That sounds ok. Yes. Older odbc/java/psql interfaces still use the xinv pattern to restrict table lists. As new interfaces use relkind, I can then change the internal name. -- Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 + If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w) + Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)