Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sKgxW-00BdFb-FU for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 16:17:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sKgxU-004fZL-OE for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 16:17:53 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sKgxU-004fZA-CG for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 16:17:52 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sKgxS-002RJA-4h for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 16:17:51 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 45LGHkpa600218; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 12:17:46 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: "David G. Johnston" cc: Maxwell Dreytser , "pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org" Subject: Re: RowDescription for a function does not include table OID In-reply-to: References: <3528232.1718682678@sss.pgh.pa.us> <597261.1718985078@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to "David G. Johnston" message dated "Fri, 21 Jun 2024 08:57:49 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-ID: <600216.1718986666.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 12:17:46 -0400 Message-ID: <600217.1718986666@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk "David G. Johnston" writes: > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 8:51 AM Tom Lane wrote: >> The PG wire protocol specification [1] defines these fields thus: >> If the field can be identified as a column of a specific >> table, the object ID of the table; otherwise zero. > s/can be identified as/is/g ? > Experience shows people are inferring a lot from "can be identified" so we > should remove it. "is" maybe over-simplifies a bit but in the correct > direction. I dunno, that seems to me to be just as open to argument if not more so. Perhaps some phrasing like "can be directly identified"? The real point IMV is that it's based purely on parse analysis, without looking into the behavior of views or functions (which could change between parsing and execution, anyway). regards, tom lane