| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)gluefinance(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Herrera Alvaro <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug in pg_describe_object |
| Date: | 2011-01-11 16:43:12 |
| Message-ID: | 19441.1294764192@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joel Jacobson <joel(at)gluefinance(dot)com> writes:
> 2011/1/11 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> Seems like concatenating the OIDs would accomplish that. (If you
>> think not, well, you still haven't explained what problem you're trying
>> to solve...)
> The can be different in two different databases sharing the same
> original schema, but of two different versions.
> In this case it is better to compare textual strings describing the
> objects than to compare based on oids.
If that's what you're after, getObjectDescription is entirely
unsuitable, because of the fact that its results are dependent
on search path and language settings.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-11 16:46:38 | Re: pg_depend explained |
| Previous Message | Joel Jacobson | 2011-01-11 16:42:23 | Re: pg_depend explained |