2010/5/3 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net:
It was a convenient choice. You could propose a different method for
generating the specific routine name, but given that it has to fit into
an identifier and has to allow for function overloading, some kind of
number makes the most sense, in absence
On tis, 2010-05-04 at 09:19 +0100, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
2010/5/3 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net:
It was a convenient choice. You could propose a different method for
generating the specific routine name, but given that it has to fit into
an identifier and has to allow for function
2010/5/4 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net:
On tis, 2010-05-04 at 09:19 +0100, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
2010/5/3 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net:
It was a convenient choice. You could propose a different method for
generating the specific routine name, but given that it has to fit into
On fre, 2010-04-30 at 17:36 +0100, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
why specific_name column on that view contains also OID ?
This makes two databases that are identical, have different values
there. Is there any specific reason for that ?
It was a convenient choice. You could propose a different
why specific_name column on that view contains also OID ?
This makes two databases that are identical, have different values
there. Is there any specific reason for that ?
--
GJ
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
