| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: and it's not a bunny rabbit, either |
| Date: | 2010-12-31 13:10:07 |
| Message-ID: | 1293800880-sup-7126@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of vie dic 31 02:07:18 -0300 2010:
> I think that's true in some cases but not all. The system-generated
> attribute names thing actually applies in several cases, and I think
> it's pretty cut-and-dried. When you get into something like which
> kinds of relations support triggers, that's a lot more arbitrary.
I think part of the problem with the phrase "system-generated attribute
names" is: how are users supposed to figure out what that means, and
what relation types it applies to? It seems entirely non-obvious.
> I think for now what I
> had better do is try to get this SQL/MED patch finished up by
> soldiering through this mess rather than trying to fix it. I think
> it's going to be kind of ugly, but we haven't got another plan then
> we're just going to have to live with the ugliness.
Perhaps it would make sense to fix the cases for which there is a
consensus, and leave the rest alone for now.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-12-31 13:28:36 | Re: Snapshot synchronization, again... |
| Previous Message | Joel Jacobson | 2010-12-31 13:00:23 | contrib/snapshot |