Mark Dilger <hornschnor...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Dec 11, 2015, at 2:40 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Huh? Those files are the definition of that mapping, no? Isn't what >> you're proposing circular?
> No, there are far more references to Oids than there are definitions of them. Well, you're still not being very clear, but I *think* what you're proposing is to put a lot more smarts into the script that converts the master source files into .bki format. That is, we might have "=(int8,int4)" in an entry in the master source file for pg_amop, but the script would look up that entry using the source data for pg_type and pg_operator, and then emit a simple numeric OID into the .bki file. (Presumably, it would know to do this because we'd redefine the pg_amop.amopopr column as of regoperator type not plain OID.) Yeah, that could work, though I'd be a bit concerned about the complexity and speed of the script. Still, one doesn't usually rebuild postgres.bki many times a day, so speed might not be a big problem. This seems more or less orthogonal to the question of whether to get rid of the DATA() lines in favor of a COPY-friendly data format. I'd suggest treating those as separate patches. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers