| From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: lock listing |
| Date: | 2002-07-31 19:15:56 |
| Message-ID: | 1028142958.1790.51.camel@jester |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Wed, 2002-07-31 at 14:47, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:34:19PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Yes, I think that would be the way to go, or look at the stat functions
> > that return tuple sets and use those. That may be a cleaner solution.
>
> Why is that cleaner?
Cleaner may be the wrong word.
Consistent, follows tradition, more obvious to those who have used
PostgreSQL for a number of years...
Slightly lower learning curve for newbies. Sub-selects in the from
based on functions is not that common. Selecting from tables is :)
Lastly, it'll show up in \dS if it's a sudo table. The function is
buried in thousands of \df results.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2002-07-31 19:23:32 | Re: lock listing |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-07-31 19:10:10 | Re: lock listing |