Thread: [HACKERS] objsubid vs subobjid

[HACKERS] objsubid vs subobjid

From
Jim Nasby
Date:
pg_get_object_address() currently returns a field called subobjid, while 
pg_depend calls that objsubid. I'm guessing that wasn't on purpose 
(especially because internally the function uses objsubid), and it'd be 
nice to fix it.

Attached does that, as well as updating the input naming on the other 
functions for consistency. I stopped short of changing the instances of 
subobjid in the C code to reduce backpatch issues, but maybe that should 
be done too...
-- 
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Attachment

Re: [HACKERS] objsubid vs subobjid

From
Peter Eisentraut
Date:
On 2/22/17 19:35, Jim Nasby wrote:
> pg_get_object_address() currently returns a field called subobjid, while 
> pg_depend calls that objsubid. I'm guessing that wasn't on purpose 
> (especially because internally the function uses objsubid), and it'd be 
> nice to fix it.

I'm in favor of changing it, but it could theoretically break someone's
code.  I don't know what the practical use for these functions is.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



Re: [HACKERS] objsubid vs subobjid

From
Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2/22/17 19:35, Jim Nasby wrote:
> > pg_get_object_address() currently returns a field called subobjid, while 
> > pg_depend calls that objsubid. I'm guessing that wasn't on purpose 
> > (especially because internally the function uses objsubid), and it'd be 
> > nice to fix it.
> 
> I'm in favor of changing it, but it could theoretically break someone's
> code.

Yes, it was an oversight.  +1 for changing.

> I don't know what the practical use for these functions is.

This was originally written for BDR use in DDL replication.  Partly the
interfaces exist for testing purposes (to make sure that object
addresses can roundtrip between internal OID numerical representation
and set of names); what BDR uses is the path that goes via event
triggers (pg_event_trigger_ddl_commands and pg_event_trigger_dropped_objects).
I didn't find any use of the name "subobjid" anywhere in BDR.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



Re: [HACKERS] objsubid vs subobjid

From
Peter Eisentraut
Date:
On 3/1/17 09:51, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 2/22/17 19:35, Jim Nasby wrote:
>>> pg_get_object_address() currently returns a field called subobjid, while 
>>> pg_depend calls that objsubid. I'm guessing that wasn't on purpose 
>>> (especially because internally the function uses objsubid), and it'd be 
>>> nice to fix it.
>>
>> I'm in favor of changing it, but it could theoretically break someone's
>> code.
> 
> Yes, it was an oversight.  +1 for changing.

OK done.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



Re: [HACKERS] objsubid vs subobjid

From
Jim Nasby
Date:
On 3/1/17 9:24 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 3/1/17 09:51, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> On 2/22/17 19:35, Jim Nasby wrote:
>>>> pg_get_object_address() currently returns a field called subobjid, while
>>>> pg_depend calls that objsubid. I'm guessing that wasn't on purpose
>>>> (especially because internally the function uses objsubid), and it'd be
>>>> nice to fix it.
>>>
>>> I'm in favor of changing it, but it could theoretically break someone's
>>> code.
>>
>> Yes, it was an oversight.  +1 for changing.
>
> OK done.

BTW, did you backpatch as well? The function was added in 9.5. 
Presumably we wouldn't normally do that, but if we think this is unused 
enough maybe it's worth it.
-- 
Jim Nasby, Chief Data Architect, OpenSCG



Re: [HACKERS] objsubid vs subobjid

From
Peter Eisentraut
Date:
On 3/5/17 16:10, Jim Nasby wrote:
> BTW, did you backpatch as well? The function was added in 9.5. 
> Presumably we wouldn't normally do that, but if we think this is unused 
> enough maybe it's worth it.

It's a catalog change, so we can't backpatch it.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services