Re: [RFC] grants vs. inherited tables

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] grants vs. inherited tables
Date: 2012-01-04 18:30:09
Message-ID: CA+TgmoY2_JqYMuSLsvYgfZ-TEFbN+5jN4j+7dWNA8wMVXWu1xQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 4:25 AM, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I have the (hopefully wrong) impression that you're missing the fact
>> that it already exists, at least in 9.0.
>
> You are right, I missed it.  For quite obvious reason:
>
>  $ grep -ri aclexplode doc/
>  $
>
> Is there a good reason why it's undocumented?  Internal/unstable API?
> I better avoid it then.  But I would like to have this or similar
> function as part of public API.

I don't see any real reason why we couldn't document this one. It
returns OIDs, but that's the name of the game if you're doing anything
non-trivial with PostgreSQL system catalogs. Off-hand I'm not quite
sure which section of the documentation would be appropriate, though.
It looks like the functions we provide are mostly documented in
chapter 9, Functions and Operators. Section 9.23 on "System
Information Functions" seems like it's probably the closest fit...

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2012-01-04 18:32:50 Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Previous Message Robert Haas 2012-01-04 18:19:24 Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2