Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This doesn't look good. If we throw a WARNING, why do we not insert
> anything into pg_description. Seems we should throw an error, or do the
> insert with a warning.
Throwing an error breaks existing pg_dump files. Doing the insertion is
simply wrong
Rod Taylor wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 15:46, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > This doesn't look good. If we throw a WARNING, why do we not insert
> > anything into pg_description. Seems we should throw an error, or do the
> > insert with a warning.
>
> It used to be a
Rod Taylor wrote:
On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 14:46, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Another problem is that pg_description is per-database, while
pg_user/group are global for all databases.
databases are also per cluster, but we have comments on those.
Could we keep the us
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Comments longer than ~7k would need a toast table. At the moment, toast
> tables don't work on a global basis.
Sure they do ... in fact, all the shared catalogs have one.
I think the idea of putting comments directly into pg_shadow and friends
is too icky
Bruce Momjian wrote:
This doesn't look good. If we throw a WARNING, why do we not insert
anything into pg_description. Seems we should throw an error, or do the
insert with a warning.
It essentially makes the behavior deprecated and allows dumps to be
restored properly (without the extra-databa
This doesn't look good. If we throw a WARNING, why do we not insert
anything into pg_description. Seems we should throw an error, or do the
insert with a warning.
---
Mike Mascari wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > Bruce M
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Another problem is that pg_description is per-database, while
pg_user/group are global for all databases.
databases are also per cluster, but we have comments on those.
Could we keep the user/group comments in those tables instead of in
pg_descriptio
It's rumoured that Andrew Dunstan once said:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>>Another problem is that pg_description is per-database, while
>>pg_user/group are global for all databases.
>>
>>
>>
> databases are also per cluster, but we have comments on those.
>
> Could we keep the user/group comments in
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Another problem is that pg_description is per-database, while
pg_user/group are global for all databases.
databases are also per cluster, but we have comments on those.
Could we keep the user/group comments in those tables instead of in
pg_description?
cheers
andrew
--
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Clark C. Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It would be wonderful to be able to create comments
> > on users and groups. In particular, I need a place
> > to store the user's name. Yes, I could make a user
> > table, but that seems overkill as all of the other
> > aspects o
"Clark C. Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It would be wonderful to be able to create comments
> on users and groups. In particular, I need a place
> to store the user's name. Yes, I could make a user
> table, but that seems overkill as all of the other
> aspects of a user are already in the
It would be wonderful to be able to create comments
on users and groups. In particular, I need a place
to store the user's name. Yes, I could make a user
table, but that seems overkill as all of the other
aspects of a user are already in the metadata.
Best,
Clark
--
Clark C. Evans
12 matches
Mail list logo
