Re: information_schema.parameters

why specific_name column on that view contains also OID ?
This makes two databases that are identical, have different values
there. Is there any specific reason for that ?

--
GJ

On fre, 2010-04-30 at 17:36 +0100, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
> why specific_name column on that view contains also OID ?
> This makes two databases that are identical, have different values
> there. Is there any specific reason for that ?

It was a convenient choice. You could propose a different method for
generating the specific routine name, but given that it has to fit into
an identifier and has to allow for function overloading, some kind of
number makes the most sense, in absence of any other requirements.

2010/5/3 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:
> It was a convenient choice.  You could propose a different method for
> generating the specific routine name, but given that it has to fit into
> an identifier and has to allow for function overloading, some kind of
> number makes the most sense, in absence of any other requirements.

how about just a name, with no OIDs ?
I am trying to compare two databases, and this really does get in a
way. I think it defeats the purpose here, since I have to chop the
numbers off.

--
GJ

On tis, 2010-05-04 at 09:19 +0100, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
> 2010/5/3 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:
> > It was a convenient choice. You could propose a different method for
> > generating the specific routine name, but given that it has to fit into
> > an identifier and has to allow for function overloading, some kind of
> > number makes the most sense, in absence of any other requirements.
>
> how about just a name, with no OIDs ?

The "specific name" must be unique among functions with the same name.

> I am trying to compare two databases, and this really does get in a
> way. I think it defeats the purpose here, since I have to chop the
> numbers off.

If you want the plain name, join information_schema.parameters with
information_schema.routines and use the column routine_name.

2010/5/4 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:
> On tis, 2010-05-04 at 09:19 +0100, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
>> 2010/5/3 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:
>> > It was a convenient choice.  You could propose a different method for
>> > generating the specific routine name, but given that it has to fit into
>> > an identifier and has to allow for function overloading, some kind of
>> > number makes the most sense, in absence of any other requirements.
>>
>> how about just a name, with no OIDs ?
>
> The "specific name" must be unique among functions with the same name.
>
>> I am trying to compare two databases, and this really does get in a
>> way. I think it defeats the purpose here, since I have to chop the
>> numbers off.
>
> If you want the plain name, join information_schema.parameters with
> information_schema.routines and use the column routine_name.

I basically need to compare the whole schema, as much detail as possible.
So for now I am just taking any views from information_schema. I see
fit, and remove any columns that are hardcoded to NULL (not
supported), store that in a bunch of temporary tables, and will try to
compare it. Which will lead me to primary key battle later on, so
thanks for the hint :)

--
GJ