Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Uh, I thought the shoot-down was for duplication of existing
> information in new system tables, not the addition of new system
> table information, e.g. we have pg_operator, but no list of error
> codes or keywords in the system tables.
System tables are primarily useful if
Robert Treat wrote:
> On Monday 06 June 2005 17:35, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Josh Berkus wrote:
> > > Bruce,
> > >
> > > > I do like this idea. Can you make a general patch? Do others like the
> > > > idea of system tables showing error codes and keywords?
> > >
> > > Yes. However, I think the i
On Monday 06 June 2005 17:35, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Bruce,
> >
> > > I do like this idea. Can you make a general patch? Do others like the
> > > idea of system tables showing error codes and keywords?
> >
> > Yes. However, I think the idea of additional system views has a
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> > I do like this idea. Can you make a general patch? Do others like the
> > idea of system tables showing error codes and keywords?
>
> Yes. However, I think the idea of additional system views has already been
> shot down in flames.
> Unless people think t
Bruce,
> I do like this idea. Can you make a general patch? Do others like the
> idea of system tables showing error codes and keywords?
Yes. However, I think the idea of additional system views has already been
shot down in flames.
Unless people think that it's reasonable to have a syste
I do like this idea. Can you make a general patch? Do others like the
idea of system tables showing error codes and keywords?
---
David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 12:49:47AM +0100, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> > J
This has been saved for the 8.1 release:
http:/momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches2
---
David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 12:49:47AM +0100, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> > Josh Berkus wrote:
> > >Neil,
>
On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 12:49:47AM +0100, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> >Neil,
> >
> >
> >>pg_functions might be useful, but what would pg_users offer that pg_user
> >>does not already do?
> >
> >
> >Show a list of groups that the user belongs to? Same thing with
> >pg_groups; sho
Josh Berkus wrote:
Neil,
pg_functions might be useful, but what would pg_users offer that pg_user
does not already do?
Show a list of groups that the user belongs to? Same thing with pg_groups;
showing the list of users in the group.
A pg_sequences view might also be handy.
Yes. Anything el
Neil,
> pg_functions might be useful, but what would pg_users offer that pg_user
> does not already do?
Show a list of groups that the user belongs to? Same thing with pg_groups;
showing the list of users in the group.
> A pg_sequences view might also be handy.
Yes. Anything else? So far I
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 07:35, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Is there any reason that we don't have pg_functions, pg_users, pg_groups and
> other system views?pg_tables and pg_views is really useful, but it would
> be good to cover the other items as well.
pg_functions might be useful, but what would p
Folks,
Is there any reason that we don't have pg_functions, pg_users, pg_groups and
other system views?pg_tables and pg_views is really useful, but it would
be good to cover the other items as well.
Is there a reason not to have these other than that they're not coded? If
not, I'll get w
12 matches
Mail list logo
