On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 01:20:09AM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 02:43:19AM -0000, Andrew - Supernews wrote: > > On 2005-05-06, Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Hmmm ... we argued about this. I was in favor of hiding the OIDs > > >> because OIDs are not consistent after a database reload and names are. > > >> I can see your point though; what do other people think? > > > > > > Well phpPgAdmin is unable to use the pg_tables view, for instance, > > > because we have no way of getting the table comment using the > > > information in that view... > > > > If you look at the columns lists, you'll find that oids are exposed in > > a number of places. In general, I didn't make a point of exposing them > > everywhere, but I _did_ expose them in cases where I thought it likely > > that querying by or for the oid in particular might be needed. (OIDs > > are, after all, exposed quite a bit by the wire protocol and by libpq.) > > > > Whether the balance is correct here is something I'm open to suggestions > > about. > > Perhaps it makes sense to expose the OIDs of each object in it's view. > IE: pg_tables would have table_oid, pg_types would have type_oid, etc.
And this is exactly what we are doing. The table view has a tableoid. The type view has the type oid, etc. > -- > Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828 > > Windows: "Where do you want to go today?" > Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?" > FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?" > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly