From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | 'Tom Lane' <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>, Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Really annoying comments... |
Date: | 2002-04-21 18:49:24 |
Message-ID: | AE0489E2D9F21E4FB5A2DDBBA713908D01FB02@dogbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: 21 April 2002 19:45
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Rod Taylor; Hackers List
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Really annoying comments...
>
>
> Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> >> I'm more inclined to rip it out ;-).
>
> > Eeep! pgAdmin handles comments coming from multiple pg_description
> > tables and it works very well (IMHO) in the pgAdmin UI. By
> all means
> > make them work more sensibly in whatever way seems most
> appropriate -
> > I'll fix pgAdmin to handle it, but don't just rip them out please!!
>
> Well, it would seem like the only sensible rule would be to
> allow COMMENT ON DATABASE only for the *current* database.
> Then at least you know which DB to look in.
That wouldn't cause me any pain - in pgAdmin the comment is just a property
of a pgDatabase object - if you modify it, it will always be set through a
connection to that database.
Regards, Dave.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Curt Sampson | 2002-04-21 19:03:04 | Re: Schema (namespace) privilege details |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-21 18:44:42 | Re: Really annoying comments... |