From: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade not preserving comments on predefined roles |
Date: | 2021-05-07 00:12:54 |
Message-ID: | 60948606.1030301@anastigmatix.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/02/21 19:25, Tom Lane wrote:
> Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> writes:
>> I've appended the comments we use for them at $work, anyway.
>
> IMO these would have to be shortened quite a bit to be friendly for
> "\du+" displays. I'm not against the concept though.
I'm certainly not wedded to the exact wording we used here.
That said, our particular reason for having them (the bgworker-produced
roles/memberships/permissions graphviz thing) is not meant just for the
eyes of technical staff, but also to be presentable to, say, compliance
folks coming around asking about security provisions. So making the
comments so terse they'd require expansion for such an audience
might kind of defeat that purpose.
In pg_proc there seem to be a handful of things with 80 to 90 character
comments and one (a statistics function) at 111. Could that be taken
for precedent as to reasonable length?
Regards,
-Chap
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2021-05-07 00:24:25 | Re: alter table set TABLE ACCESS METHOD |
Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2021-05-06 22:19:44 | Re: alter table set TABLE ACCESS METHOD |