Re: [HACKERS] Comments on SQL/Med objects
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Shigeru HANADA han...@metrosystems.co.jp wrote: On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:24:27 -0400 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: Attached. Foreign tables are already OK, I believe; it's only foreign data wrappers and foreign servers that appear to need fixing. The patch seems good for basic functionarity. I've tested the patch and noticed that get_foreign_data_wrapper_oid() is same as GetForeignDataWrapperOidByName(), so they could be merged. Also GetForeignServerOidByName() could be merged. I changed foreign data wrapper in message to foreign-data wrapper for consistency, but it's revertable. Please see merge_oid_funcs.patch which can be applied onto your patch. Thanks for the review, good catches. Committed those two patches together with a bit of further rearrangement. I think some supports can be added for comments on SQL/MED objects. - pg_dump support for comment on fdw and server - psql describe commands (\dew+ and \des+) - psql TAB completion Please see attached patches for each feature. I'll take a look at these next. While testing pg_dump, I noticed that comment of extension's member objects are not dumped by pg_dump. Those comments should be dumped after CREATE EXTENSION statement? No, I don't believe that would be correct. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Comments on SQL/Med objects
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Shigeru HANADA han...@metrosystems.co.jp wrote: - pg_dump support for comment on fdw and server Applied, good catch, thanks. - psql describe commands (\dew+ and \des+) Not sure if we want this behavior change or not. Any other opinions? It doesn't look like there's any particular consistency in terms of which backslash commands include a description always (e.g. \dT), which ones include it only when + is specified (e.g. \dt), and which don't include it at all (e.g. \dc). - psql TAB completion Committed this also. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Comments on SQL/Med objects
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:06 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Yeah, I had a private TODO about that. I'd like to see if we can refactor the grammar to eliminate some of the duplication there as well as the potential for oversights of this sort. I believe that USER MAPPINGs are missing from ObjectType as well as a bunch of other basic places ... Are you going to work on this? If not I can pick it up, at least insofar as making the comment stuff work across the board. I'm still up to my rear in collations, so feel free. OK. I'll work on it this week. Attached. Foreign tables are already OK, I believe; it's only foreign data wrappers and foreign servers that appear to need fixing. The fact that foreign data wrapper is sometimes abbreviated to fdw and sometimes not does nothing for the greppability of the code. I'm wondering if we should go through and fix the constants that abbreviate it: ACL_KIND_FDW ACL_ALL_RIGHTS_FDW OBJECT_FDW OCLASS_FDW It seems to me that it would be a whole lot clearer and easier if these all spelled it out FOREIGN_DATA_WRAPPER, as we do for similar object types. Other than a pretty minute back-patch hazard, I don't see much down side. Thoughts? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company foreign-comment.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Comments on SQL/Med objects
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Guillaume Lelarge guilla...@lelarge.info wrote: While working on adding support for SQL/Med objects to pgAdmin, I'm quite surprised to see there is no way to add comments to SQL/Med objects. Is this on purpose or is it just something that was simply missed? I think it's an oversight. We should probably fix this. Yeah, I had a private TODO about that. I'd like to see if we can refactor the grammar to eliminate some of the duplication there as well as the potential for oversights of this sort. I believe that USER MAPPINGs are missing from ObjectType as well as a bunch of other basic places ... Are you going to work on this? If not I can pick it up, at least insofar as making the comment stuff work across the board. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Comments on SQL/Med objects
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Yeah, I had a private TODO about that. I'd like to see if we can refactor the grammar to eliminate some of the duplication there as well as the potential for oversights of this sort. I believe that USER MAPPINGs are missing from ObjectType as well as a bunch of other basic places ... Are you going to work on this? If not I can pick it up, at least insofar as making the comment stuff work across the board. I'm still up to my rear in collations, so feel free. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Comments on SQL/Med objects
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:06 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Yeah, I had a private TODO about that. I'd like to see if we can refactor the grammar to eliminate some of the duplication there as well as the potential for oversights of this sort. I believe that USER MAPPINGs are missing from ObjectType as well as a bunch of other basic places ... Are you going to work on this? If not I can pick it up, at least insofar as making the comment stuff work across the board. I'm still up to my rear in collations, so feel free. OK. I'll work on it this week. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Comments on SQL/Med objects
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Guillaume Lelarge guilla...@lelarge.info wrote: While working on adding support for SQL/Med objects to pgAdmin, I'm quite surprised to see there is no way to add comments to SQL/Med objects. Is this on purpose or is it just something that was simply missed? I think it's an oversight. We should probably fix this. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Comments on SQL/Med objects
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Guillaume Lelarge guilla...@lelarge.info wrote: While working on adding support for SQL/Med objects to pgAdmin, I'm quite surprised to see there is no way to add comments to SQL/Med objects. Is this on purpose or is it just something that was simply missed? I think it's an oversight. We should probably fix this. Yeah, I had a private TODO about that. I'd like to see if we can refactor the grammar to eliminate some of the duplication there as well as the potential for oversights of this sort. I believe that USER MAPPINGs are missing from ObjectType as well as a bunch of other basic places ... regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Comments on SQL/Med objects
Le 23/03/2011 17:53, Tom Lane a écrit : Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Guillaume Lelarge guilla...@lelarge.info wrote: While working on adding support for SQL/Med objects to pgAdmin, I'm quite surprised to see there is no way to add comments to SQL/Med objects. Is this on purpose or is it just something that was simply missed? I think it's an oversight. We should probably fix this. Yeah, I had a private TODO about that. I'd like to see if we can refactor the grammar to eliminate some of the duplication there as well as the potential for oversights of this sort. I believe that USER MAPPINGs are missing from ObjectType as well as a bunch of other basic places ... OK, great. Thanks for your answers. -- Guillaume http://www.postgresql.fr http://dalibo.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] Comments on SQL/Med objects
Hi, While working on adding support for SQL/Med objects to pgAdmin, I'm quite surprised to see there is no way to add comments to SQL/Med objects. Is this on purpose or is it just something that was simply missed? Thanks. -- Guillaume http://www.postgresql.fr http://dalibo.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
