On 9/18/06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Hmm ... I was thinking it didn't matter, but on closer look, the
> int4->oid cast is implicit while the oid->int4 one is only assignment.
> So you'd need to write a cast to pass an OID if we declare the functions
> as taking int4. But you'll need a cast anyway if you want to pass a
> single OID to the int8-taking version (that's an assignment cast too).
>
> The downside of declaring the functions to take OID is that people might
> think they could *only* use OIDs, which isn't so, they can use any
> int4-sized key they feel like.
hm. this is really a byproduct of oid being the catchall unsigned int4
type since it has the most built in casts. i agree 100% though on the
oid perception however, i don't like userland oids at all, until such
time as an 8 bit one comes out. i would say leave as int4 unless you
were willing to sql typedef the oid to some other name.
merlin
