| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: COMMENT ON [GROUP/USER] |
| Date: | 2004-03-08 21:34:37 |
| Message-ID: | 16483.1078781677@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> This doesn't look good. If we throw a WARNING, why do we not insert
> anything into pg_description. Seems we should throw an error, or do the
> insert with a warning.
Throwing an error breaks existing pg_dump files. Doing the insertion is
simply wrong: it will allow the former breakage to be perpetuated
forward by dump/reload. Thus the current behavior is an unfortunate but
necessary compromise ... at least until we have better support for
comments on databases.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-03-08 21:36:14 | Re: COMMENT ON [GROUP/USER] |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-08 21:29:41 | Re: socket calls in signal handler (WAS: APC + socket restrictions un der Win32?) |