From: Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <199808062310.TAA19367@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Large objects names
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980806184229.793L-100000@maidast.retep.org.uk>
	from Peter T Mount at "Aug 6, 1998  6:42:38 pm"
To: peter@retep.org.uk (Peter T Mount)
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 19:10:49 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: hackers@postgreSQL.org, pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > > On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Currently, large objects are stored internally as xinv### and xinx###.
> > > > 
> > > > I would like to rename this for 6.4 to be _lobject_### to prevent
> > > > namespace collisions, and make them clearer for administrators.
> > > > 
> > > > However, this may cause problems for backward compatability for large
> > > > object users.  As I see there are going to be other new large object
> > > > things in 6.4, it may not be an issue.
> > > > 
> > > > Is is OK to rename them internally?
> > > 
> > > Shouldn't be a problem. JDBC does refer to the xin prefix with the
> > > getTables method, so it's simply a single change there.
> > 
> > I am suggesting changes in later releases to older interfaces can
> > communicated with 6.4 without any problems.
> 
> That sounds ok.

Yes.  Older odbc/java/psql interfaces still use the xinv pattern to
restrict table lists.  As new interfaces use relkind, I can then change
the internal name.
-- 
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)