| From: | Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Rithvika Devisetti <devisettirithvika(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Add pg_get_event_trigger_ddl() function |
| Date: | 2026-07-22 00:21:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAB8KJ=jhxek=Lmm=pJe_zRX45gejwYR8pbUNCt3A4OY2uECCBg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2026年7月22日(水) 4:53 Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>:
>
> v4 looks good to me, I only have one nitpick question:
>
> + <optional>, <parameter>enable</parameter> <type>boolean</type>
> + <literal>DEFAULT</literal> true</optional> )
>
> Shouldn't we call this something different, for example enabled?
That did cross my mind, but while "enabled" feels more natural grammatically,
"enable" corresponds to the "ENABLE" clause which is to be emitted (or omitted).
Except when it's "DISABLE"... I can't think of any better phrasing
which is reasonably
short and conveys the meaning "emit the clause which indicates the trigger is to
be disabled or enabled, and if the latter in what context".
Regards
Ian Barwick
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2026-07-22 00:33:51 | Re: Validate SERVER subscription conninfo during ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... OWNER TO |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-07-21 23:18:44 | Re: pgstat: add pgstat_prep_pending() for entry ref pending setup |