It's rumoured that Bruce Momjian once said: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > I was willing to add a hack to enable default column labels to be >> > "table.column" --- that seemed like the least obtrusive. >> >> Most of the definitional issues still apply: which table name are you >> going to insert, and under what conditions? >> >> If we're revising the protocol, there's no reason to hack up the >> column label to carry two pieces of info; it'd be cleaner to provide a >> separate slot in the T message to carry the table name. I just want >> to see a reasonably complete spec for what the feature is supposed to >> do, before we buy into it ... > > I don't think we can get a complete spec, and hence the _hack_ idea. > :-)
Well, what would constitute a complete spec? I think I've told the group what I would like to be able to do, what unanswered questions can I (hopefully :-) ) answer? Regards, Dave. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
