| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Bhuvan A <bhuvansql(at)myrealbox(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Bug #880: COMMENT ON DATABASE depends on current database |
| Date: | 2003-01-27 21:34:04 |
| Message-ID: | 200301272134.h0RLY4k09056@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > Do we have psql -l to connect to all the databases to collect comments?
> > I guess we could _try_ to connect to as many databases as possible, but
> > it seems a little overly complex to me. What do others think?
>
> I tend to think that the functionality to give comments to databases
> should either be redone to work right (for example by storing the comment
> in a global table (but think about the encoding problems)) or be ripped
> out. Right now the feature to give a comment to a database you presumably
> already know (since you connected to it) does not seem to justify the
> confusion it causes.
Good analysis. Is removal actually the best solution?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2003-01-27 21:59:00 | Re: Bug #880: COMMENT ON DATABASE depends on current |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-27 21:29:52 | Re: [BUGS] New hashed IN code ignores distinctiveness of subquery |