Re: [HACKERS] 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>, Chris Bitmead <chris@bitmead.com>, Postgres Hackers List <hackers@postgresql.org>, "pgsql-patches@postgresql.org" <pgsql-patches@postgresql.org>
Date: 2000-06-26T04:48:13Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Chris Bitmead wrote: > > 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. Or put another way, I see SQL3 has a feature S051 "CREATE TABLE <tablename> OF <type>", and it seems maybe the <type> should be called a class, and the table a collection of that class. This would advocate the tableoid name I think. Someone please correct me if my thinking is muddled here.