| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)gluefinance(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Herrera Alvaro <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug in pg_describe_object, patch v2 |
| Date: | 2011-01-23 19:18:57 |
| Message-ID: | 1012.1295810337@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> So I guess I'm coming around to the idea that we want something not too
>> much bigger than Andreas' original patch, but applying to both amop and
>> amproc, and putting the operator/function description at the end.
> That's fine with me.
OK, committed that way.
> I think the principal argument for failing to
> remove it entirely is that we've traditionally had it there, but IMHO
> moving in the direction of treating them as separate objects is much
> more clear and an altogether better approach.
I think there's a usability argument in addition to just plain "we
always did it that way". But anyway, this patch has now officially
been discussed to death.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-23 19:45:06 | Re: REVIEW: ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY ... NOT ENFORCED |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-01-23 19:06:21 | Re: REVIEW: ALTER TABLE ... ADD FOREIGN KEY ... NOT ENFORCED |