| From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Kuhn, Dylan K (4520500D)" <Dylan(dot)Kuhn(at)navy(dot)mil>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: problems with pg_restore |
| Date: | 2003-07-15 19:50:51 |
| Message-ID: | 1058298650.9981.117.camel@jester |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
> Hm. Evidently not :-(. The COMMENT ON DATABASE facility is a bit bogus
> anyway (since there's no way to make the comments visible across
> databases). You might be best advised not to use it.
>
> Hackers: this seems like an extremely bad side-effect of what we thought
> was a simple addition of a helpful check. I am thinking we should
> either remove the check again, or downgrade it to a WARNING (though I'm
> not quite sure how to phrase the warning ...). Any thoughts?
How about going the other way and removing the requirement to explicitly
state the database?
COMMENT ON DATABASE IS 'This comment is on the current database.';
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-07-15 20:03:13 | Re: problems with pg_restore |
| Previous Message | Kuhn, Dylan K (4520500D) | 2003-07-15 16:54:25 | Re: problems with pg_restore |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-07-15 20:03:13 | Re: problems with pg_restore |
| Previous Message | Jenny - | 2003-07-15 18:20:09 | locking mechanism |