Re: Closing some 8.4 open items

From: Grzegorz Jaskiewicz <gj(at)pointblue(dot)com(dot)pl>
To: Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Closing some 8.4 open items
Date: 2009-04-11 12:39:47
Message-ID: 6F1713A3-03C8-4BD6-9A2F-EF79C8380205@pointblue.com.pl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 11 Apr 2009, at 13:33, Hitoshi Harada wrote:

>> Maybe trigger functions should be displayed separately too than ?
>
> You don't catch the point. The aggregate entries in pg_proc have
> prosrc = 'aggregate_dummy', which means they're dummy and the entities
> are stored in pg_aggregate. Triggers in pg_proc are dummy? No, they
> are actually plain functions with trigger return type.

yes, that's from strictly insider's point of view. Based on the
implementation of that in postgresql, but you guys talk about user
perspective, after all - psql is for users, not only for postgresql
hackers.
So the better question would be, can you use window, aggregate,
trigger functions the same way other procedures ? I guess the answer
is no :)
Hence, if classify - than I would suggest to do it completely and
fair, and not judge it only from postgresql-hacker perspective.

I am hardly the postgresql-hacker myself, so it is my opinion from
user perspective, that also understands where your opinion comes from.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2009-04-11 12:52:31 Re: Closing some 8.4 open items
Previous Message Hitoshi Harada 2009-04-11 12:33:16 Re: Closing some 8.4 open items