| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: improve predefined roles documentation |
| Date: | 2024-06-25 20:04:03 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaUzaq+q7V79NyjQi6bbnSu_Lo75k1ijR_7LKWhFarzQw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 3:26 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I used this in v4 (with some minor changes).
Looking at this again, how happy are you with the way you've got
several roles per <varlistentry> instead of one for each? I realize
that was probably part of the intent of the change, to move the data
from below the table into the table, and I see the merit of that. But
one of your other complaints was the entries in the table were
unordered, and it's hard for them to really be ordered if you have
groups like this, since you can't alphabetize, for example, unless you
have just a single entry per <varlistentry>.
I don't have a problem with doing it the way you have here if you
think that's good. I'm just asking.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-06-25 20:07:27 | Re: Apparent bug in WAL summarizer process (hung state) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-06-25 19:51:24 | Re: Apparent bug in WAL summarizer process (hung state) |