| From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Bhuvan A <bhuvansql(at)myrealbox(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Bug #880: COMMENT ON DATABASE depends on current |
| Date: | 2003-01-27 21:59:00 |
| Message-ID: | 1043704740.68971.59.camel@jester |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
> > 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?
Front-ends like pg_admin actually make pretty good use out of it.
--
Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>
PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-27 22:01:40 | Re: recent (just got from cvs) build doesn't run nicely |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-01-27 21:34:04 | Re: Bug #880: COMMENT ON DATABASE depends on current database |