On 7 March 2011 20:49, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> writes:
>> Patch attached which corrects the docs where catalog functions no
>> longer accept values of type name. Originally a note submitted by
>> someone on the docs, but this affects more than just the one they
>> mentioned.
>
> The reason those are phrased as "OID or name" is that what they take is
> regclass, which means that things like pg_total_relation_size('table_name')
> do in fact work. I think the proposed wording would leave people with
> the idea that they had to supply a numeric OID, which is a PITA and not
> by any means the expected usage. I agree that maybe the original
> wording could use some improvement, but I don't think that just removing
> "or name" is an improvement.
That's fair enough, but it still needs changing, as whilst an OID
won't cause an error, a field with the type of name will. Is it
reasonable to refer to a parameter as required to be of type regclass?
--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935
