Robert Haas writes:
> On the other hand, I am also not entirely sure such a change in
> terminology would be a net improvement in clarity, even though it does
> seem better in some cases. For example, the CREATE TABLE command does
> not create a viewed table; nor is there any CREATE VIEWED TABLE
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On fre, 2011-08-12 at 16:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> > "A table is either a base table, a derived table, a transient table, or
>> > a viewed table." (SQL/MED adds "foreign ta
On fre, 2011-08-12 at 16:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > "A table is either a base table, a derived table, a transient table, or
> > a viewed table." (SQL/MED adds "foreign table".)
> >
> > Just FYI.
>
> Base table seems clear enough, an
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tor, 2011-08-04 at 14:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > Well, the facts are: According to the SQL standard, "table"
>> includes
>> > views and foreign tables. According to scientific-ish database
>> > literature, a table is a relation
On tor, 2011-08-04 at 14:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Well, the facts are: According to the SQL standard, "table"
> includes
> > views and foreign tables. According to scientific-ish database
> > literature, a table is a relation and vice versa.
>
> So what are you supposed to call it if you
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 14:20 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> > According to scientific-ish database literature, a table is a
> > relation and vice versa.
>
> I've generally understood the terms more like what is described near
> the top of this page:
>
> http://en.w
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> According to scientific-ish database literature, a table is a
> relation and vice versa.
I've generally understood the terms more like what is described near
the top of this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relation_%28database%29
"In SQL, [...] a relation varia
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On ons, 2011-07-27 at 17:57 -0400, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
>> > I think table_name is fine, and if you are very worried, add below
>> that
>> > a table_name also includes views (or whatever).
>>
>> It includes tables, views, composite types
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On ons, 2011-07-27 at 18:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Also, while it may be true that we haven't used the term specifically
>> in SQL sypnoses, it's been extensively used in other parts of the
>> documentation, in the names of system fun
On ons, 2011-07-27 at 18:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Also, while it may be true that we haven't used the term specifically
> in SQL sypnoses, it's been extensively used in other parts of the
> documentation, in the names of system functions such as
> pg_relation_size(),
Well, that thing is just
On ons, 2011-07-27 at 17:57 -0400, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
> > I think table_name is fine, and if you are very worried, add below
> that
> > a table_name also includes views (or whatever).
>
> It includes tables, views, composite types, and foreign tables. Is
> "table" really an appropriate descri
Robert Haas wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I would like to argue for reverting this. If you want to
>> word-smith details like this, "relation" doesn't carry any
>> additional meaning. PG hackers know that internally, a
>> "relation" is a table, view, index, sequence, etc., but for the
>
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I would like to argue for reverting this. If you want to word-smith
> details like this, "relation" doesn't carry any additional meaning. PG
> hackers know that internally, a "relation" is a table, view, index,
> sequence, etc., but for
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tis, 2011-07-26 at 09:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Josh Kupershmidt
>> wrote:
>> > That seems like a good way to document this; patch for master
>> updated.
>> > I avoided mucking with the documenta
On tis, 2011-07-26 at 09:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Josh Kupershmidt
> wrote:
> > That seems like a good way to document this; patch for master
> updated.
> > I avoided mucking with the documentation for COMMENT ON RULE and
> > COMMENT ON TRIGGER this time; th
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Josh Kupershmidt
>> wrote:
>> I think this is basically the right approach but I found what you did
>> here a bit wordy, so I simplified it, commit
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
> I think this is basically the right approach but I found what you did
> here a bit wordy, so I simplified it, committed it, and back-patched
> to 9.0 with suitable adjustment. Hopefu
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
> That seems like a good way to document this; patch for master updated.
> I avoided mucking with the documentation for COMMENT ON RULE and
> COMMENT ON TRIGGER this time; they both say "table" when they really
> mean "table or view", but m
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
>> Here's a small patch against branch 8.4 to mention support for COMMENT
>> ON index_name.column_name.
>
> I am not in favor of this - because we'd also need to mention every
> other r
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
> Here's a small patch against branch 8.4 to mention support for COMMENT
> ON index_name.column_name.
I am not in favor of this - because we'd also need to mention every
other relkind that can support comments. I think if we want to do
som
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> After a bit of review of the archives, the somebody was me:
>> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git&a=commitdiff&h=b7d67954456f15762c04e5269b64adc88dcd0860
>>
>> and this
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> After a bit of review of the archives, the somebody was me:
> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git&a=commitdiff&h=b7d67954456f15762c04e5269b64adc88dcd0860
>
> and this thread was the discussion about it:
> http://archives.postgresql
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Josh Kupershmidt writes:
>>> What's the Description displayed in that table?
>
>> What it ought to be is the comment (if any) attached to the index's
>> column. Up through 8.4 this worked as expected, but in 9.0 and up
>> somebody s
I wrote:
> Josh Kupershmidt writes:
>> What's the Description displayed in that table?
> What it ought to be is the comment (if any) attached to the index's
> column. Up through 8.4 this worked as expected, but in 9.0 and up
> somebody seems to have disallowed comments on index columns. Not
> s
Josh Kupershmidt writes:
> So, if you look at \d+ newtbl, the right-most column named Description
> should display any comments attached to newtbl's columns. You should
> see "bcol column comment" as the Description for column bcol. That
> works OK.
Right.
> Now, try this:
> test=# \d+ newtbl_i
Hi all,
The psql output for \d+ on indexes, sequences, and views is rather
bogus. Examples below from the SQL at bottom.
So, if you look at \d+ newtbl, the right-most column named Description
should display any comments attached to newtbl's columns. You should
see "bcol column comment" as the Des
26 matches
Mail list logo
