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 <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> 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 decibel@decibel.org
> 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
>
