| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: How about to have relnamespace and relrole? |
| Date: | 2015-04-01 15:20:24 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZwYqBeE=SLqYTnR0O3=5V5dLC_NTTh1WEG4ZeCFPPgPw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> I have just claimed this as committer in the CF, but on reviewing the emails
> it looks like there is disagreement about the need for it at all, especially
> from Tom and Robert.
>
> I confess I have often wanted regnamespace, particularly, and occasionally
> regrole, simply as a convenience. But I'm not going to commit it against
> substantial opposition.
>
> Do we need a vote?
Seeing this committed this wouldn't be my first choice, but I can live
with it, as long as the patch is good technically. As useful as these
sorts of types are, I'm not convinced that notational convenience for
people steeped in backend internals is a sufficiently-good reason to
clutter the system with more built-in types. But I'm probably in the
minority on that; and it's clearly a judgement call anyway.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2015-04-01 15:20:38 | Re: How about to have relnamespace and relrole? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-04-01 14:48:49 | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |