From: | Joshua Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [patch] GUC source file and line number] |
Date: | 2008-09-03 20:07:46 |
Message-ID: | 20080903130746.2bcd103e@jd-laptop |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 16:04:12 -0400 (EDT)
Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> wrote:
> Section question: with those changes, would it then be reasonable to
> you to keep that column named "default" instead of giving it a less
> common name?
>
> > You are adopting a very narrow mindset, which seems to be that only
> > DBAs look at this view.
>
> DBAs are the only group I am always getting questions in this area
> from. Everybody else seemed happy with the status quo, where the
> value wasn't exposed at all and you just looked in guc.c to see what
> it was.
I guess I would ask, "Who else would we be targeting this for?". DBAs
seem to be the only logical choice.
Joshua D. Drake
--
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2008-09-03 20:10:24 | Re: [PATCH] Cleanup of GUC units code |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2008-09-03 20:04:12 | Re: [patch] GUC source file and line number] |