On 18 August 2011 00:22, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
>
>> Updated patch attached, along with a revised SQL script to make
>> testing easier. I can add this to the next CF.
>>
>> Note, there is a separate thread[1] with just the psql changes
[Resending with gzip'ed patch this time, I think the last attempt got eaten.]
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
1.) For now, I'm just ignoring the issue of visibility checks; I
didn't see a simple way to sup
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
> Well, I was hoping to go by the existing psql backslash commands'
> notions about what qualifies as "system" and what doesn't; that worked
> OK for commands which supported the 'S' modifier, but not all do. For
> objects like tablespaces,
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 11:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Josh Kupershmidt
>> wrote:
> It seems funny to have is_system = true unconditionally for any object
> type. Why'd you do it that way? Or maybe I
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
>> I think we still need to handle my "Still TODO" concerns noted
>> upthread. I don't have a lot of time this weekend due to a family
>> event, but I was mulling over putting in a
On Jul 15, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Josh,
>
>> Fair enough. If the pg_comments patch does go down in flames, I can
>> circle back and patch up the rest of the holes in \dd.
>
> I am unable to figure out the status of the pg_comments patch from this
> thread. What's going on with i
Josh,
> Fair enough. If the pg_comments patch does go down in flames, I can
> circle back and patch up the rest of the holes in \dd.
I am unable to figure out the status of the pg_comments patch from this
thread. What's going on with it?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>> I was kind of hoping to avoid dealing with this can of worms with this
>>> simple patch, which by itself seems uncontroversial. If there's
>>> consensus that \dd and the other backslas
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
[review of original, small patch to add another type to \dd's output]
> I am inclined to say that we should reject this patch as it stands.
That's totally OK - that original patch was of marginal use given the
larger brokenness of \dd.
> With
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> I was kind of hoping to avoid dealing with this can of worms with this
>> simple patch, which by itself seems uncontroversial. If there's
>> consensus that \dd and the other backslash commands need further
>> reworking, I can probably devo
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Patch applies clean, does what it is supposed to do, and matches other
> conventions in describe.c Passing to committer. pg_comments may be
> a better way to go, but that is a problem for another day...
Thanks for the review, and sorry
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> At the risk of opening a can of worms, if we're going to fix \dd,
>> shouldn't we fix it completely, and include comments on ALL the object
>> types that can have them? IIRC it's mi
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> 2011/6/18 Josh Kupershmidt :
> I think the v5 patch should be marked as 'Ready for Committer'
I think we still need to handle my "Still TODO" concerns noted
upthread. I don't have a lot of time this weekend due to a family
event, but I was mu
I think the v5 patch should be marked as 'Ready for Committer'
2011/6/18 Josh Kupershmidt :
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
>> In addition, this pg_comments system view supports 'access method' class, but
>> we cannot set a comment on access methods using COMMENT ON statem
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
>> Regarding to the data-type of objnamespace, how about an idea to define a new
>> data type such as 'regschema' and cast objnamespace into this type?
>> If we have such data type, user can reference string expression of schema
>> name,
>>
I checked the v4 patch.
At first, I noticed three missing object classes although COMMENT ON allows to
set a description on 'collation', 'extension' and 'foreign table'.
In addition, this pg_comments system view supports 'access method' class, but
we cannot set a comment on access methods using CO
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>>> Hmm, if we're going to have pg_comments as a syntactic sugar kind of
>>> thing, it should output things in format immediately useful to the user,
>>> i.e. relatio
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Hmm, if we're going to have pg_comments as a syntactic sugar kind of
>> thing, it should output things in format immediately useful to the user,
>> i.e. relation/column/etc names and not OIDs. The OIDs would force y
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Excerpts from Josh Kupershmidt's message of dom jun 05 16:36:57 -0400 2011:
>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Josh Kupershmidt
>> wrote:
>> > Attached is a rebased patch. From a quick look, it seems that most of
>> > the object types mis
Excerpts from Josh Kupershmidt's message of dom jun 05 16:36:57 -0400 2011:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
> > Attached is a rebased patch. From a quick look, it seems that most of
> > the object types missing from \dd are already covered by pg_comments
> > (cast, cons
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
> Well actually, I got into messing with this solely from the Todo list.
> Which, of course, neglected to mention the thread about pg_comments,
> or the other objects missing from \dd.
Heh. Sounds like updating the Todo list would be a go
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
>> Precisely, and I think there's a solid argument for putting
>> constraints into bucket 1 above, as this patch does, since there's no
>> good room to display constraint comments insi
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
> Precisely, and I think there's a solid argument for putting
> constraints into bucket 1 above, as this patch does, since there's no
> good room to display constraint comments inside \d+, and there's no
> backslash command specifically for
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> At the risk of opening a can of worms, if we're going to fix \dd,
> shouldn't we fix it completely, and include comments on ALL the object
> types that can have them? IIRC it's missing a bunch, not just
> constraints.
You opened this can up,
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Attached is a simple patch addressing the TODO item "Allow \dd to show
> constraint comments". If you have comments on various constraints
> (column, foreign key, primary key, unique, exclusion), they should
> show up via \dd
Hi all,
Attached is a simple patch addressing the TODO item "Allow \dd to show
constraint comments". If you have comments on various constraints
(column, foreign key, primary key, unique, exclusion), they should
show up via \dd now.
Some example SQL is attached to create two tables with a variety
26 matches
Mail list logo
