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
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
