From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: todo: comment field for pg users and groups |
Date: | 2004-09-22 14:11:36 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.61.0409221603310.17756@sablons.cri.ensmp.fr |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Alvaro,
>> Thus I would suggest to add one new text field in pg_group and pg_shadow
>> for this purpose, that could be initialized with something like:
>>
>> CREATE USER calvin COMMENT 'Calvin <calvin(at)comics(dot)org>';
>>
>> Alternatively, it could be managed with "COMMENT ON ..."? Well, users or
>> groups are not really database objects... so it does not really fit.
>
> One problem is that pg_comment, where comments are held, is not a shared
> relation. So if comments are stored there, they would not show up in
> other databases if you change, drop or add them.
Ok. This is the rationnal for users not to have comments.
> The same applies to databases and tablespaces, and that's why there's a
> warning emitted when you add a comment to a database.
Argh... Indeed non-shared comments on shared objects are not so useful.
> There have been noises of adding a new catalog for keeping comments for
> shared objects (which would itself be shared, of course). I'm not sure
> what the rationale is for not putting them in the pg_shadow catalog.
Well, if there is a "shared" comment infrastructure that would be nice
indeed. I now see the todo item about "shared" comments. So the todo
is not needed... but just the implementation!
Thanks for your answer,
--
Fabien Coelho - coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-09-22 14:12:44 | Re: elog in 7.4 |
Previous Message | Meskes | 2004-09-22 13:20:10 | Re: |