Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Support comments on FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER and SERVER objects.
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Shigeru HANADA <hanada@metrosystems.co.jp>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru.hanada@gmail.com>, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2011-04-05T18:47:51Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Support comments on FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER and SERVER objects.
- 50533a6dc515 9.1.0 cited
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 6:03 AM, Shigeru HANADA > <hanada@metrosystems.co.jp> wrote: >> * The comment_user_mapping_core.patch includes syntax support, catalog >> manipulation, pg_dump support, documents and regression tests. > I don't think it's going to fly to add a function > pg_usermapping_ownercheck() with a randomly different API than all the > parallel functions for other object types. There is probably some > more refactoring that needs to be done here to make this sane, but I'm > coming around to the view that trying to slip this into 9.1 is not the > best thing for us to be spending time on, especially considering that > it doesn't seem to be straightforward to figure out how it should > actually work. I am inclined to punt this to 9.2. I agree --- this can clearly contains more worms than we expected. Supporting user mappings in COMMENT, EXTENSION, etc is not so critical that we should push a possibly misdesigned notion of ownership into the system for it. Better to take our time and think about that. (BTW, it might be useful to reconsider casts while we are thinking about this. Those don't have a proper notion of ownership either. I'm a bit inclined to think that we should just bite the bullet and add owner columns to both these catalogs. But, again, let's not be hasty.) regards, tom lane