Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of vie dic 31 02:07:18 -0300 2010: > I think that's true in some cases but not all. The system-generated > attribute names thing actually applies in several cases, and I think > it's pretty cut-and-dried. When you get into something like which > kinds of relations support triggers, that's a lot more arbitrary.
I think part of the problem with the phrase "system-generated attribute names" is: how are users supposed to figure out what that means, and what relation types it applies to? It seems entirely non-obvious. > I think for now what I > had better do is try to get this SQL/MED patch finished up by > soldiering through this mess rather than trying to fix it. I think > it's going to be kind of ugly, but we haven't got another plan then > we're just going to have to live with the ugliness. Perhaps it would make sense to fix the cases for which there is a consensus, and leave the rest alone for now. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
