On 06/12/2014 10:29 PM, Walter Couto wrote:
> I think the idea of the original function is good where for known
> types we have our answers without a query. But I agree that we need
> some sort of query and a hash map to store types we don't know
> about.
>
> So the fix is probably to add the known types we know are missing
> right now and then also add a code that takes the OID of the type we
> did not know about and finds the info via query and caches the
> results. (maybe that would be two patches to isolate the changes)
Yeah, sounds reasonable.
- Heikki
