Re: CLASSOID patch
Chris <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au>
From: Chris Bitmead <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: Chris Bitmead <chris@bitmead.com>, Postgres Hackers List <hackers@postgresql.org>, "pgsql-patches@postgresql.org" <pgsql-patches@postgresql.org>
Date: 2000-06-26T03:24:56Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Chris Bitmead writes: > > > Attached is a first attempt at implementing the classoid feature. > > I'm wondering what other people think about the naming. Firstly, it's my > feeling that TABLEOID would be more in line with the general conventions. I was thinking this myself today. Mainly because I wonder if in the future there may be support for more than one table implementing a particular class type. On the other hand the oid is a reference to the pg_class table. Maybe pg_class should be renamed pg_table? Anyway, my current thinking is that tableoid is better. The general naming conventions in postgres are a bit disturbing. Some places refer to classes, some to tables, some to relations. One day it should all be reconciled :-). > Secondly, maybe we ought to make the name less susceptible to collision by > choosing a something like _CLASSOID (or whatever). Only if oid becomes _oid and ctid becomes _ctid. I don't think it's worth it myself. > > It works! > > Great! :)