Re: [HACKERS] Large objects names - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Hartwig
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Large objects names
Date
Msg-id 35C9AC44.91BB9A8C@insightdist.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Large objects names  (Peter T Mount <peter@retep.org.uk>)
List pgsql-hackers

Peter T Mount wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Currently, large objects are stored internally as xinv### and xinx###.
> >
> > I would like to rename this for 6.4 to be _lobject_### to prevent
> > namespace collisions, and make them clearer for administrators.
> >
> > However, this may cause problems for backward compatability for large
> > object users.  As I see there are going to be other new large object
> > things in 6.4, it may not be an issue.
> >
> > Is is OK to rename them internally?
>
> Shouldn't be a problem. JDBC does refer to the xin prefix with the
> getTables method, so it's simply a single change there.
>

The same goes for ODBC.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: t-ishii@sra.co.jp
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Broken source tree
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Large objects names