2010/5/4 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@xxxxxxx>: > 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. I basically need to compare the whole schema, as much detail as possible. So for now I am just taking any views from information_schema. I see fit, and remove any columns that are hardcoded to NULL (not supported), store that in a bunch of temporary tables, and will try to compare it. Which will lead me to primary key battle later on, so thanks for the hint :) -- GJ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
