| From: | nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org (Neil Conway) |
|---|---|
| To: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: lock listing |
| Date: | 2002-07-31 19:23:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20020731192332.GA27143@klamath.dyndns.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 03:15:56PM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-07-31 at 14:47, Neil Conway wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:34:19PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Yes, I think that would be the way to go, or look at the stat functions
> > > that return tuple sets and use those. That may be a cleaner solution.
[...]
> Lastly, it'll show up in \dS if it's a sudo table. The function is
> buried in thousands of \df results.
I'm confused: I thought that Bruce was suggesting that I change the
lock status functions to be similar to the stats functions (i.e. one
function for every piece of data and a view that pulls them all
together).
There's no problem with wrapping a view over the table function -- but
IMHO using 5 different functions when one would suffice is just ugly.
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-07-31 19:35:07 | Re: lock listing |
| Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2002-07-31 19:15:56 | Re: lock listing |