Re: [HACKERS] pg_proc.h

2005-11-11 Thread Dave Page
> -Original Message- > From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 10 November 2005 15:38 > To: Dave Page > Cc: Andrew Dunstan; PostgreSQL-development > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_proc.h > > "Dave Page" writes: > > I vote for fixing t

Re: [HACKERS] pg_proc.h

2005-11-10 Thread Tom Lane
"Dave Page" writes: > I vote for fixing the file (but then I'm not doing the work). > Unused_oids or whatevers it's called is fine, but it's still handy to be > able to read the file easily. Our convention is that hand-assigned OIDs are *globally* unique, not just within the particular catalog.

Re: [HACKERS] pg_proc.h

2005-11-10 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > contains the following: > /* keep the following ordered by OID so that later changes can be made > easier */ > which has manifestly not been followed. Should we fix the file or remove > the second comment? Reordering the file into strict OID order i

Re: [HACKERS] pg_proc.h

2005-11-10 Thread Dave Page
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Andrew Dunstan > Sent: 10 November 2005 14:30 > To: PostgreSQL-development > Subject: [HACKERS] pg_proc.h > > > contains the following: > > /* > * initial contents of pg_