2010/5/4 Peter Eisentraut :
> On tis, 2010-05-04 at 09:19 +0100, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
>> 2010/5/3 Peter Eisentraut :
>> > It was a convenient choice. You could propose a different method for
>> > generating the specific routine name, but given that it has to fit into
>> > an identifier and h
On tis, 2010-05-04 at 09:19 +0100, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
> 2010/5/3 Peter Eisentraut :
> > It was a convenient choice. You could propose a different method for
> > generating the specific routine name, but given that it has to fit into
> > an identifier and has to allow for function overloadi
2010/5/3 Peter Eisentraut :
> It was a convenient choice. You could propose a different method for
> generating the specific routine name, but given that it has to fit into
> an identifier and has to allow for function overloading, some kind of
> number makes the most sense, in absence of any othe
On fre, 2010-04-30 at 17:36 +0100, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
> why specific_name column on that view contains also OID ?
> This makes two databases that are identical, have different values
> there. Is there any specific reason for that ?
It was a convenient choice. You could propose a different
why specific_name column on that view contains also OID ?
This makes two databases that are identical, have different values
there. Is there any specific reason for that ?
--
GJ
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://w
