On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2015-08-25 22:01:51 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Seeing no activity in the last couple of months for this patch that
> > had reviews, it is now marked as returned with feedback.
>
> Fabrizio, you after the above moved the patch to ne
On 2015-08-25 22:01:51 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Seeing no activity in the last couple of months for this patch that
> had reviews, it is now marked as returned with feedback.
Fabrizio, you after the above moved the patch to next commitfest,
without a new patch or a additional discussion. Wh
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:04 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
>
>> I have this idea:
>>
>> 1) Add an ObjectAddress field to CommentStmt struct an set it in gram.y
>>
>> 2) In the CommentObject check if CommentStmt->address is
>> InvalidObjectAddress then call get_object_a
Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
> I have this idea:
>
> 1) Add an ObjectAddress field to CommentStmt struct an set it in gram.y
>
> 2) In the CommentObject check if CommentStmt->address is
> InvalidObjectAddress then call get_object_address else use it
For DDL deparsing purposes, it seems import
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>
> Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
> >
> > Looking at the patch again I realize the code is very ugly, so I'll
rework
> > the patch.
>
> Yes, I think get_object_address should figure out what to do with the
> representation of CURRENT DATABASE
Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
>
> Looking at the patch again I realize the code is very ugly, so I'll rework
> the patch.
Yes, I think get_object_address should figure out what to do with the
representation of CURRENT DATABASE directly, rather than having the
COMMENT code morph from that into a
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <
fabriziome...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Robert Haas
wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> > wrote:
> > >> >> > If we ever implement something like
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> wrote:
> >> >> > If we ever implement something like
> >> >> >
> >> >> > COMMENT ON CURRENT_DATABASE IS ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > it will be useful, because you will be able to restore
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
wrote:
>> >> > If we ever implement something like
>> >> >
>> >> > COMMENT ON CURRENT_DATABASE IS ...
>> >> >
>> >> > it will be useful, because you will be able to restore a dump into
>> >> > another database and have the comment apply to t
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> wrote:
> >> > If we ever implement something like
> >> >
> >> > COMMENT ON CURRENT_DATABASE IS ...
> >> >
> >> > it will be useful, because you will be able to restore a dump into
>
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> =?UTF-8?Q?Fabr=C3=ADzio_de_Royes_Mello?= writes:
> > Just one last doubt. Do we expose a new function called
"current_database"
> > like "current_catalog", "current_user", ... ?
>
> There already is one. But that would have nothing to do with
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> wrote:
> > Just one last doubt. Do we expose a new function called
"current_database"
> > like "current_catalog", "current_user", ... ?
>
> Why would we do that?
>
We don't need it.
=?UTF-8?Q?Fabr=C3=ADzio_de_Royes_Mello?= writes:
> Just one last doubt. Do we expose a new function called "current_database"
> like "current_catalog", "current_user", ... ?
There already is one. But that would have nothing to do with the proposed
patch anyway, because the bits of syntax in ques
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
wrote:
> Just one last doubt. Do we expose a new function called "current_database"
> like "current_catalog", "current_user", ... ?
Why would we do that?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL C
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <
fabriziome...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Robert Haas
wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> > wrote:
> > >> > If we ever implement something like
> > >> >
> > >> > COMMENT
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> wrote:
> >> > If we ever implement something like
> >> >
> >> > COMMENT ON CURRENT_DATABASE IS ...
> >> >
> >> > it will be useful, because you will be able to restore a dump into
>
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
wrote:
>> > If we ever implement something like
>> >
>> > COMMENT ON CURRENT_DATABASE IS ...
>> >
>> > it will be useful, because you will be able to restore a dump into
>> > another database and have the comment apply to the target database
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > If we ever implement something like
> >
> > COMMENT ON CURRENT_DATABASE IS ...
> >
> > it will be useful, because you will be able to restore a dump into
> > another database and h
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> If we ever implement something like
>
> COMMENT ON CURRENT_DATABASE IS ...
>
> it will be useful, because you will be able to restore a dump into
> another database and have the comment apply to the target database.
> (Also, I wonder about
>
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Are there any use-cases for pg_dump to use CURRENT/SESSION_USER in its
> output, so that restores will not be hard-coded to the dump user? I
> didn't see any cases of that, but wanted to ask.
Good question. I don't know, probably not.
If we ever implement something lik
Are there any use-cases for pg_dump to use CURRENT/SESSION_USER in its
output, so that restores will not be hard-coded to the dump user? I
didn't see any cases of that, but wanted to ask.
pg_dump doesn't have to restore into old clusters so there isn't a
problem with backward compatibility.
---
21 matches
Mail list logo
