| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: TODO item: Allow more complex user/database default GUC settings |
| Date: | 2009-09-27 03:44:02 |
| Message-ID: | 20090927034402.GD5944@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas escribió:
> The problem of having both a table and a closely related view is,
> IME, one that comes up a lot. I think you just need to pick a
> convention and stick with it. Mine is to append "_view" to the
> table name.
That would make the difference clear, but since what the user normally
wants to see is the view, it seems a poor solution to make the view the
more difficult one to type (and the one that isn't tab-completed first
in psql). I'd go with naming the view pg_db_role_setting and append
"_internal" to the catalog or something similar, except that we don't
have any catalog with such a bad name yet and I don't want to start.
Maybe name the table pg_configuration?
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-09-27 04:37:03 | Re: Issues for named/mixed function notation patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-27 03:43:42 | Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling |