Re: safe to overload objectSubId for a type? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: safe to overload objectSubId for a type?
Date
Msg-id 25373.1567398595@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to safe to overload objectSubId for a type?  (Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net>)
Responses Re: safe to overload objectSubId for a type?
List pgsql-hackers
Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net> 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 handy to stash
> a typmod there, and not have to carry those around separately.

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.

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 use-cases for that, such as allowing a DROP of a column
type to not propagate to the whole composite type.  So I'd be pretty down
on allowing it to mean typmod instead.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: POC: Cleaning up orphaned files using undo logs
Next
From: "r.takahashi_2@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Subject: pg_basebackup -F t fails when fsync spends more time thantcp_user_timeout