On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: >>> This doesn't strike me as very good advice. Those things are not exposed >>> generally for good reason. The right way to do this surely is to have the >>> app look up and cache the OIDs it needs rather than hardcode the values in >>> the application. > >> Note he didn't provide reasons why he is asking for this power. Your >> assertion is a coded variant of "don't use the binary protocol" which >> I happen to think is not very good advice IF you know what you're >> doing. > > Say what? He didn't say that, he said "don't assume that user-defined > types have hard-wired OIDs".
Well, you're right, strictly speaking. Of course, the OP is not assuming it, he is enforcing it. And I still think this is a proxy argument about binary protocol features. merlin (Andrew's advice is of course prudent, and should certainly by typically taken before mine) :-D -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
