Dave Page wrote:
> The problem that I found was that if you update the comment on an
> operator (a trivial task in pgAdmin which is what I was coding at the
> time) it updates the comment on the underlying function - not so good as
> the new comment may no longer make sense when read from the pers
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 June 2002 21:00
> To: Mike Mascari
> Cc: Rod Taylor; Dave Page; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Operator Comments
>
>
> Mike Mascari wrote:
> > Here's the
Mike Mascari wrote:
> Here's the history, FWIW:
>
> I implemented COMMENT ON for just TABLES and COLUMNS, like Oracle.
>
> Bruce requested it for all objects
>
> I extended for all objects - including databases (my bad) ;-)
>
> Peter E. was rewriting psql and wanted the COMMENT on operators to
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "Rod Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Looks like CommentOperator goes to quite a bit of work (5 lines) to
> > accomplish fetching the procedure and states specifically it's not a
> > bug.
>
> Yeah, someone once thought it was a good idea, but I was wondering about
> th
> "Rod Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Looks like CommentOperator goes to quite a bit of work (5 lines)
to
> > accomplish fetching the procedure and states specifically it's not
a
> > bug.
>
> I can see the value in having the function comment shown when there
is
> no comment specifically
"Rod Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Looks like CommentOperator goes to quite a bit of work (5 lines) to
> accomplish fetching the procedure and states specifically it's not a
> bug.
Yeah, someone once thought it was a good idea, but I was wondering about
the wisdom of it just the other day
x27;s not a
bug. In which case RemoveOperator needs to drop comments by the
procID as well.
--
Rod
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 5:03 PM
Subject: [HACKERS] Operator Comments
> Du
During some testing of pgAdmin's internals whilst adding schema support
I noticed that altering or setting a comment on an operator actually
sets the comment on the operator function.
In other words, change the comment on testschema.+(int4, int4) and the
comment is actually set on the function pg
