2010/12/15 Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> > On Dec15, 2010, at 18:33 , Dmitriy Igrishin wrote: > > 2010/12/15 Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> > > On Dec15, 2010, at 16:18 , Dmitriy Igrishin wrote: > > >> 2010/12/15 Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> > > >> On Dec15, 2010, at 02:14 , James William Pye wrote: > > >> > On Dec 13, 2010, at 6:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> >> how do you identify which type OID is really hstore? > > >> > > > >> > How about an identification field on pg_type? > > >> > > > >> > CREATE TYPE hstore ..., IDENTIFIER 'org.postgresql.hstore'; > > >> > -- Where the "identifier" is an arbitrary string. > > >> > > >> I've wanted something like this a few times when dealing > > >> with custom types within a client. A future protocol version > > >> might even transmit these identifiers instead a the type's OID, > > >> thereby removing the dependency on OID from clients entirely. > > > > > > In some another tread I've proposed CREATE TYPE ... WITH OID... > > Yeah, and I believe type identifiers are probably what you were > > really looking for ;-) > > Indeed, but why OID cannot serve as identifier in this case ? Why to > > encode the code ? :-) > Because there are only 2^32 OIDs, so if people start picking them at > random, sooner or later there will be collisions. > Yes, but range of PostgreSQL's OIDs can be reserved. One or even ten millions, e.g. can be enough.
> > Type identifiers would solve > > this, by providing an easy and unambiguous way to find specific types. > > Agree with 1st assertion but disagree with 2nd. If I understand > correctly, > > "identifier" is a second name for type (object), but Java-styled, right ? > > It probably does solve the problem if there are will be convention that > > types org.postgresql.* are reserved. > Yeah, that'd be the idea. If everyone uses reversed DNS-style names, and > everyone picks a name belonging to a DNS zone under his control, there > cannot be any collisions. At least for java packages, this seems to work > pretty nicely. > > > But why not reserve name of type > > "hstore" and prevent the user to create type with this reserved name ? > > All this tells me one thing - to avoid conflicts of naming of specific > types > > it is necessary to make them built-in. > None of these solutions scale well. > Well, If there are will be identifiers for each type, e.g. org.postgresql.integer, why they need to be built-in ? For "historical reasons" ? :-) Let them also be in contribs... > > best regards, > Florian Pflug > > > -- // Dmitriy.
