On 09/02/19 11:41, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hm, apparently we already do handle that in some way, because
> this works:
> ...
> Nonetheless, I'd be pretty hesitant to allow somebody to use
> objsubid with some entirely different meaning for types.
As long as it stays an internal detail of a caching schem
Chapman Flack writes:
> On 09/02/19 00:29, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If we ever do make ObjectAddress.objectSubId mean something for types,
>> I'd expect --- based on the precedent of relation columns --- that it'd
>> specify a column number for a column of a composite type. There are
>> fairly obvious
On 09/02/19 00:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> If this is totally independent of ObjectAddress, why are you even
> asking? I assume that what you mean is you'd like these values to
> bleed into ObjectAddresses or vice versa.
Only that I'm working on a data structure of my own to cache my own
representatio
Chapman Flack writes:
> I don't mean "overload objectSubId" in any ObjectAddress that PG code
> would ever see. I am only thinking of a data structure of my own that
> is ObjectAddress-like and has all three components available all the
> time, and for an object that's a type, I would find it hand
Hi,
I don't mean "overload objectSubId" in any ObjectAddress that PG code
would ever see. I am only thinking of a data structure of my own that
is ObjectAddress-like and has all three components available all the
time, and for an object that's a type, I would find it handy to stash
a typmod there,
