Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: and it's not a bunny rabbit, either

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: and it's not a bunny rabbit, either
Date: 2010-12-31 01:58:20
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On further reflection, this can still turn into a laundry list in certain cases.

> DETAIL: You can only comment on columns of tables, views, and composite types.

> seems less helpful than:

> DETAIL: Comments on relations with system-generated column names are
> not supported.

> I think that for rules, triggers, constraints, and anything that only
> works on a single relkind, we can't do much better than to list the
> specific object types.  But where there's some sort of guiding
> principle involved I think we'd do well to articulate it.

I'm unconvinced, because the "guiding principle" is likely to be an
implementation detail that won't actually mean much to users.  Your
example above is a case in point --- I do *not* think the average
user will see that as an improvement.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-12-31 02:02:04
Subject: Re: estimating # of distinct values
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-12-31 01:57:34
Subject: Re: Sync Rep Design

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group