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