> On 19 Mar 2024, at 02:14, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 08:00:00AM +0800, jian he wrote: >> I think the "X" and "-" mean in this matrix [0] is not very intuitive. >> mainly because "X" tends to mean negative things in most cases. >> we can write a sentence saying "X" means this, "-" means that. >> >> or maybe Check mark [1] and Cross mark [2] are more universal. >> and we can use these marks. >> >> "Only for local objects" >> is there any reference explaining "local objects"? >> I think local object means objects that only affect one single database?
That's a bigger problem than the table representation, we never define what "local object" mean anywhere in the EVT docs. EV's are global for a database, but not a cluster, so I assume what this means is that EVs for non-DDL commands like COMMENT can only fire for a specific relation they are attached to and not database wide? > It is true that in Japan the cross mark refers to a negation, and > that's the opposite in France: I would put a cross on a table in the > case where something is supported. I've never seen anybody complain > about the format of these tables, FWIW, but if these were to be > changed, the update should happen across the board for all the tables > and not only one. AFAICT we only have one other table with "X" denoting support, the "Conflicting Lock Modes" table under Concurrency Control chapter, and there we simply leave the "not supported" column empty instead of using a dash. Maybe the simple fix here is to make these tables consistent by removing the dash from the event trigger firing matrix? As a sidenote, the table should gain a sentence explaining why the login column is missing to avoid confusion. -- Daniel Gustafsson
