Re: [HACKERS] [QUESTIONS] builtin lo_unlink(int4)? why int4 not oid? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Chul Su Park
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [QUESTIONS] builtin lo_unlink(int4)? why int4 not oid?
Date
Msg-id 199806131020.TAA19381@bwg02.kek.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [QUESTIONS] builtin lo_unlink(int4)? why int4 not oid?  (Peter T Mount <psqlhack@retep.org.uk>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [QUESTIONS] builtin lo_unlink(int4)? why int4 not oid?  (Peter T Mount <psqlhack@retep.org.uk>)
List pgsql-hackers
> > foo=> select lo_unlink(raster) from image;
> > ERROR:  function int4(oid) does not exist
> >
> > Why builtin "lo_unlink" is defined as accepting int4 not oid?  Then do I
> > have to do
> > foo=> select lo_unlink(int4(oid_text(raster))) from image;
> > OR
> > define "raster" as int4?  I don't think all these are good idea...  Then
> > how to delete "lo" in the "psql"?
>
> I've just tested this, and I get the same thing (on 6.3.2, and yesterdays
> CVS versions).
>
> lo_unlink should be defined with oid (which I thought was the case).
>
> A temporary way round is:
>
>     select lo_unlink(raster::int4) from image;
>
> Hackers: Is there any reason why it's defined as an int4?
>
> --
> Peter T Mount peter@retep.org.uk or petermount@earthling.net


foo=> select count(lo_unlink(raster::int4)) from bar;
ERROR:  function int4(oid) does not exist

I'm using v6.3.2(patched) on SunSolaris/Redhat5.0

Best Regards, C.S.Park


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter T Mount
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Odd behavior in regression test?
Next
From: Peter T Mount
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [QUESTIONS] builtin lo_unlink(int4)? why int4 not oid?