| From: | Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>, Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Add pg_get_event_trigger_ddl() function |
| Date: | 2026-07-23 10:32:22 |
| Message-ID: | cd9ecfb7-a308-42a8-8185-05888e864dda@uni-muenster.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 22/07/2026 08:14, Zsolt Parragi wrote:
>> 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".
>
> Yeah, I agree with this reasoning, I wasn't even sure to mention this
> or not. I only did because the ALTER EVENT TRIGGER documentation also
> mentions "disabled", so there's some precedent of using that form.
>
> Keeping it "enable" is fine with me.
>
>
Since there seems to be a consensus among all reviewers I'll mark the CF
entry as ready for committer.
Thanks!
Best, Jim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christoph Berg | 2026-07-23 10:44:29 | Re: Allow pg_read_all_stats to see database size in \l+ |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2026-07-23 10:29:02 | Re: Validate SERVER subscription conninfo during ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... OWNER TO |