| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>, Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Operator Comments |
| Date: | 2002-06-05 20:45:08 |
| Message-ID: | 200206052045.g55Kj8q20017@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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 perspective
> of the function. Of course, if the function can be used by different
> operators or even for other uses, then this situation is more likely to
> occur.
>
> Defaulting to the functions comment sounds OK, but I think an update
> should be stored against the operators oid, not the functions.
Yes, agreed. Operator-specific comments are better, if that is what is
specirfied by the user.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-06-05 22:02:33 | Re: Roadmap for a Win32 port |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2002-06-05 20:28:46 | Re: Operator Comments |