| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_comments (was: Allow \dd to show constraint comments) |
| Date: | 2011-10-14 15:12:57 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaO5vN7cDy0H-vaqkwE5ODkxfDn-1JZrZFAXp=xqXLFug@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On the third hand, Josh's previous batch of changes to clean up
>> psql's behavior in this area are clearly a huge improvement: you can
>> now display the comment for nearly anything by running the appropriate
>> \d<foo> command for whatever the object type is. So ... is this still
>> a good idea, or should we just forget about it?
>
> I think this question is a part of a broader concern, namely do we
> want to create and support system views for easier access to
> information which is already available in different ways through psql
> commands, or by manually digging around in the catalogs? I believe
> there are at least several examples of existing views we maintain
> which are very similar to pg_comments: pg_seclabel seems quite
> similar, for instance.
That's one's a direct analogue, but I don't want to overbroaden the
issue. I guess it just seems to me that if no one's going to champion
adding this, maybe we shouldn't.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-10-14 15:18:12 | Re: patch for new feature: Buffer Cache Hibernation |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-10-14 15:12:22 | Re: patch for new feature: Buffer Cache Hibernation |