2010/5/3 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@xxxxxxx>: > It was a convenient choice. You could propose a different method for > generating the specific routine name, but given that it has to fit into > an identifier and has to allow for function overloading, some kind of > number makes the most sense, in absence of any other requirements. how about just a name, with no OIDs ? I am trying to compare two databases, and this really does get in a way. I think it defeats the purpose here, since I have to chop the numbers off. -- GJ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
