[HACKERS] COMMENT ON [GROUP/USER]

2004-03-08 Thread Clark C. Evans
It would be wonderful to be able to create comments on users and groups. In particular, I need a place to store the user's name. Yes, I could make a user table, but that seems overkill as all of the other aspects of a user are already in the metadata. Best, Clark -- Clark C. Evans

Re: [HACKERS] COMMENT ON [GROUP/USER]

2004-03-08 Thread Tom Lane
Clark C. Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It would be wonderful to be able to create comments on users and groups. In particular, I need a place to store the user's name. Yes, I could make a user table, but that seems overkill as all of the other aspects of a user are already in the

Re: [HACKERS] COMMENT ON [GROUP/USER]

2004-03-08 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Clark C. Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It would be wonderful to be able to create comments on users and groups. In particular, I need a place to store the user's name. Yes, I could make a user table, but that seems overkill as all of the other aspects of a user are

Re: [HACKERS] COMMENT ON [GROUP/USER]

2004-03-08 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Bruce Momjian wrote: Another problem is that pg_description is per-database, while pg_user/group are global for all databases. databases are also per cluster, but we have comments on those. Could we keep the user/group comments in those tables instead of in pg_description? cheers andrew

Re: [HACKERS] COMMENT ON [GROUP/USER]

2004-03-08 Thread Dave Page
It's rumoured that Andrew Dunstan once said: Bruce Momjian wrote: Another problem is that pg_description is per-database, while pg_user/group are global for all databases. databases are also per cluster, but we have comments on those. Could we keep the user/group comments in those tables

Re: [HACKERS] COMMENT ON [GROUP/USER]

2004-03-08 Thread Mike Mascari
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Another problem is that pg_description is per-database, while pg_user/group are global for all databases. databases are also per cluster, but we have comments on those. Could we keep the user/group comments in those tables instead of in

Re: [HACKERS] COMMENT ON [GROUP/USER]

2004-03-08 Thread Bruce Momjian
This doesn't look good. If we throw a WARNING, why do we not insert anything into pg_description. Seems we should throw an error, or do the insert with a warning. --- Mike Mascari wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Bruce

Re: [HACKERS] COMMENT ON [GROUP/USER]

2004-03-08 Thread Mike Mascari
Bruce Momjian wrote: This doesn't look good. If we throw a WARNING, why do we not insert anything into pg_description. Seems we should throw an error, or do the insert with a warning. It essentially makes the behavior deprecated and allows dumps to be restored properly (without the

Re: [HACKERS] COMMENT ON [GROUP/USER]

2004-03-08 Thread Tom Lane
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Comments longer than ~7k would need a toast table. At the moment, toast tables don't work on a global basis. Sure they do ... in fact, all the shared catalogs have one. I think the idea of putting comments directly into pg_shadow and friends is too icky to

Re: [HACKERS] COMMENT ON [GROUP/USER]

2004-03-08 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Rod Taylor wrote: On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 14:46, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Another problem is that pg_description is per-database, while pg_user/group are global for all databases. databases are also per cluster, but we have comments on those. Could we keep the

Re: [HACKERS] COMMENT ON [GROUP/USER]

2004-03-08 Thread Bruce Momjian
Rod Taylor wrote: -- Start of PGP signed section. On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 15:46, Bruce Momjian wrote: This doesn't look good. If we throw a WARNING, why do we not insert anything into pg_description. Seems we should throw an error, or do the insert with a warning. It used to be an error,