From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Mark Lubratt <mark(dot)lubratt(at)indeq(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [ADMIN] Schema comparisons |
Date: | 2004-02-29 14:08:07 |
Message-ID: | 200402291408.07797.dev@archonet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
On Sunday 29 February 2004 02:01, Tom Lane wrote:
> Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> writes:
> > I've been looking at storing $REVISION$ in comments for each object, so
> > my install scripts can halt if there is a problem. Not wanting to use my
> > only comment slot for this I was thinking about an extension to the
> > COMMENT ON statement:
> > COMMENT ON TABLE foo IS 'This is where I stroe my foos.';
> > COMMENT ON TABLE foo SECTION 'default' IS 'I meant store my foos.';
> > COMMENT ON TABLE foo SECTION 'revision' IS '1.19';
> > COMMENT ON TABLE foo SECTION 'bar' IS 'baz';
>
> This seems a little, um, specialized. Why don't you just keep the info
> in a user-defined table?
For the same reasons you don't store existing comments in a user-defined
table:
1. It's convenient to have a standard (across providers) place for them.
2. It's meta-data, not data.
3. It gets dumped along with my table.
If it's just a case of "looks like a waste of time" then I might well waste my
time and do it. On the other hand, if it's a case of "unnecessary
complication - don't want it in the code" then I'll not bother.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Treat | 2004-02-29 16:59:37 | Re: [ADMIN] Schema comparisons |
Previous Message | Tim Larson | 2004-02-29 03:22:44 | Re: [ADMIN] Schema comparisons |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2004-02-29 14:15:57 | Re: Avoid MVCC using exclusive lock possible? |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-02-29 13:19:03 | Re: log_line_info |