>> Thus I would suggest to add one new text field in pg_group and pg_shadow
>> for this purpose, that could be initialized with something like:
>> CREATE USER calvin COMMENT 'Calvin <calvin(at)comics(dot)org>';
>> Alternatively, it could be managed with "COMMENT ON ..."? Well, users or
>> groups are not really database objects... so it does not really fit.
> One problem is that pg_comment, where comments are held, is not a shared
> relation. So if comments are stored there, they would not show up in
> other databases if you change, drop or add them.
Ok. This is the rationnal for users not to have comments.
> The same applies to databases and tablespaces, and that's why there's a
> warning emitted when you add a comment to a database.
Argh... Indeed non-shared comments on shared objects are not so useful.
> There have been noises of adding a new catalog for keeping comments for
> shared objects (which would itself be shared, of course). I'm not sure
> what the rationale is for not putting them in the pg_shadow catalog.
Well, if there is a "shared" comment infrastructure that would be nice
indeed. I now see the todo item about "shared" comments. So the todo
is not needed... but just the implementation!
Thanks for your answer,
Fabien Coelho - coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-09-22 14:12:44|
|Subject: Re: elog in 7.4 |
|Previous:||From: Meskes||Date: 2004-09-22 13:20:10|
|Subject: Re: |