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
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
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
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
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
