| From: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)gluefinance(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Herrera Alvaro <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug in pg_describe_object |
| Date: | 2011-01-11 13:25:39 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTim7YPPYvHbTZFMMpAiYHgqdTwguanM36d=uViHv@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2011/1/11 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> I don't get it. If two different items that exist in the system out
> of the box have the same description, it seems clear that relevant
> piece of disambiguating information exists nowhere in the description
> string.
I guess it is a question of prioritization.
If backwards compatibility is to be guaranteed, even for functions
returning text intended to be read by humans, then the function cannot
be modified, without violating that golden rule, if such a rule exists
within the PostgreSQL development project?
If it's not a golden rule, then it's a totally different story and
there is no excuse why it should return the same descriptions for the
same objects.
Any other reasoning is just silly.
--
Best regards,
Joel Jacobson
Glue Finance
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2011-01-11 13:50:00 | Re: ALTER TYPE 0: Introduction; test cases |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-01-11 13:17:23 | Re: ALTER TYPE 0: Introduction; test cases |