On 7 March 2011 20:49, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > Thom Brown <[email protected]> writes: >> Patch attached which corrects the docs where catalog functions no >> longer accept values of type name. Originally a note submitted by >> someone on the docs, but this affects more than just the one they >> mentioned. > > The reason those are phrased as "OID or name" is that what they take is > regclass, which means that things like pg_total_relation_size('table_name') > do in fact work. I think the proposed wording would leave people with > the idea that they had to supply a numeric OID, which is a PITA and not > by any means the expected usage. I agree that maybe the original > wording could use some improvement, but I don't think that just removing > "or name" is an improvement.
That's fair enough, but it still needs changing, as whilst an OID won't cause an error, a field with the type of name will. Is it reasonable to refer to a parameter as required to be of type regclass? -- Thom Brown Twitter: @darkixion IRC (freenode): dark_ixion Registered Linux user: #516935 -- Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
