On tis, 2010-05-04 at 09:19 +0100, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote: > 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 ? The "specific name" must be unique among functions with the same name. > 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. If you want the plain name, join information_schema.parameters with information_schema.routines and use the column routine_name. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
