On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Sam Mason wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 08:05:33PM +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
>> As I said earlier I doubt "pop" or "delete" is ever going to actually
>> be what you want. I suspect you're far more likely to want to restore
>> it to what it was before you started a
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 08:05:33PM +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> As I said earlier I doubt "pop" or "delete" is ever going to actually
> be what you want. I suspect you're far more likely to want to restore
> it to what it was before you started altering it.
>
> As support I'll point out this is what
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>>> Well I don't mind push but I still think pop is an error. What you
>>> really want to do is restore it to the value you started with. You
>>> don't want to remove the last element since that may not be the
>>> element
Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Well I don't mind push but I still think pop is an error. What you
>> really want to do is restore it to the value you started with. You
>> don't want to remove the last element since that may not be the
>> element you added. Some function you called may have added an extra
>
Greg,
Well the goal is to make them simpler. I don't know any language that
has implemented what you describe. Either you have access to the
internal methods of a class or you don't and you only have access to
the public api. That seems to work for much more sophisticated
languages than ours jus
On May 31, 2009, at 3:47 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Josh Berkus
wrote:
This assumes that all users should have access to the same public
APIs as
all other users. Real applications are more complex.
Well the goal is to make them simpler. I don't know any langua
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> This assumes that all users should have access to the same public APIs as
> all other users. Real applications are more complex.
Well the goal is to make them simpler. I don't know any language that
has implemented what you describe. Either y
Greg,
What's the point of "namespaces" if not to implement visibility? The
interesting thing to do would be to hide all the internal foo
functions in a foo.* schema and only put the external api in public.
That is an interesting idea. However, what our real users are really
doing in the fiel
On May 29, 2009, at 5:16 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:03 PM, David E. Wheeler > wrote:
On May 29, 2009, at 2:52 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
a) the ability to "push" a schema onto the current search path
b) the ability to "pull" a schema off the current search path
push, pop, s
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Sometimes one needs to use schemas just for namespacing (they are called
> "namespaces" after all), and not for security or visibility.
What's the point of "namespaces" if not to implement visibility? The
interesting thing to do would be to
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:03 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On May 29, 2009, at 2:52 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> a) the ability to "push" a schema onto the current search path
>> b) the ability to "pull" a schema off the current search path
>
> push, pop, shift, unshift. :-)
>
> Come to think of i
On May 29, 2009, at 2:52 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
a) the ability to "push" a schema onto the current search path
b) the ability to "pull" a schema off the current search path
push, pop, shift, unshift. :-)
Come to think of it, I want these for arrays, too. ;-)
Best,
David
--
Sent via pgsql-h
Greg,
Do we really? The only reason people are having trouble managing their
search_path is because they're not using it as intended and putting
things in lots of different schemas that they intend to all be
visible.
Apparently you've never adminned a database with hundreds (or thousands)
of
13 matches
Mail list logo
