-Original Message-
From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 05 June 2002 21:00
To: Mike Mascari
Cc: Rod Taylor; Dave Page; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Operator Comments
Mike Mascari wrote:
Here's the history, FWIW:
I implemented COMMENT
Dave Page wrote:
The problem that I found was that if you update the comment on an
operator (a trivial task in pgAdmin which is what I was coding at the
time) it updates the comment on the underlying function - not so good as
the new comment may no longer make sense when read from the
Tom Lane wrote:
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Looks like CommentOperator goes to quite a bit of work (5 lines) to
accomplish fetching the procedure and states specifically it's not a
bug.
Yeah, someone once thought it was a good idea, but I was wondering about
the wisdom of it
During some testing of pgAdmin's internals whilst adding schema support
I noticed that altering or setting a comment on an operator actually
sets the comment on the operator function.
In other words, change the comment on testschema.+(int4, int4) and the
comment is actually set on the function
not a
bug. In which case RemoveOperator needs to drop comments by the
procID as well.
--
Rod
- Original Message -
From: Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 5:03 PM
Subject: [HACKERS] Operator Comments
During some testing of pgAdmin's internals
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Looks like CommentOperator goes to quite a bit of work (5 lines) to
accomplish fetching the procedure and states specifically it's not a
bug.
Yeah, someone once thought it was a good idea, but I was wondering about
the wisdom of it just the other day.
Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Looks like CommentOperator goes to quite a bit of work (5 lines)
to
accomplish fetching the procedure and states specifically it's not
a
bug.
I can see the value in having the function comment shown when there
is
no comment specifically for the
