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
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2010-12-31 13:28:36|
|Subject: Re: Snapshot synchronization, again...|
|Previous:||From: Joel Jacobson||Date: 2010-12-31 13:00:23|