From: | "Rod Taylor" <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Operator Comments |
Date: | 2002-05-12 22:50:09 |
Message-ID: | 034801c1fa07$5ec8d660$0f02000a@jester |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Indeed...
Comment on operator adds the comment to the procedures, and drop
operator removes comments from pg_operator, leaving left over entries
in pg_description.
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. In which case RemoveOperator needs to drop comments by the
procID as well.
--
Rod
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 5:03 PM
Subject: [HACKERS] Operator Comments
> 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_catalog.int4pl(int4,
int4).
>
> Is this behaviour correct? I would have expected the pg_description
> entry for the comment to reference the oid of the operator itself,
so
> each operator and int4pl(int4, int4) can all have distinct comments.
>
> Regards Dave.
>
> ---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-05-12 23:25:38 | Re: Operator Comments |
Previous Message | Doug Hughes | 2002-05-12 22:03:49 | Easy upgrade |