On fre, 2011-08-12 at 16:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
A table is either a base table, a derived table, a transient table, or
a viewed table. (SQL/MED adds foreign table.)
Just FYI.
Base table seems clear enough,
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On fre, 2011-08-12 at 16:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
A table is either a base table, a derived table, a transient table, or
a viewed table.
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On the other hand, I am also not entirely sure such a change in
terminology would be a net improvement in clarity, even though it does
seem better in some cases. For example, the CREATE TABLE command does
not create a viewed table; nor is there any
On tor, 2011-08-04 at 14:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Well, the facts are: According to the SQL standard, table
includes
views and foreign tables. According to scientific-ish database
literature, a table is a relation and vice versa.
So what are you supposed to call it if you mean,
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On tor, 2011-08-04 at 14:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Well, the facts are: According to the SQL standard, table
includes
views and foreign tables. According to scientific-ish database
literature, a table is a
On ons, 2011-07-27 at 17:57 -0400, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
I think table_name is fine, and if you are very worried, add below
that
a table_name also includes views (or whatever).
It includes tables, views, composite types, and foreign tables. Is
table really an appropriate description for
On ons, 2011-07-27 at 18:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Also, while it may be true that we haven't used the term specifically
in SQL sypnoses, it's been extensively used in other parts of the
documentation, in the names of system functions such as
pg_relation_size(),
Well, that thing is just
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On ons, 2011-07-27 at 18:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Also, while it may be true that we haven't used the term specifically
in SQL sypnoses, it's been extensively used in other parts of the
documentation, in the names of
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On ons, 2011-07-27 at 17:57 -0400, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
I think table_name is fine, and if you are very worried, add below
that
a table_name also includes views (or whatever).
It includes tables, views, composite
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
According to scientific-ish database literature, a table is a
relation and vice versa.
I've generally understood the terms more like what is described near
the top of this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relation_%28database%29
In SQL, [...] a
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 14:20 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
According to scientific-ish database literature, a table is a
relation and vice versa.
I've generally understood the terms more like what is described near
the top of this page:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
I would like to argue for reverting this. If you want to
word-smith details like this, relation doesn't carry any
additional meaning. PG hackers know that internally, a
relation is a table, view, index,
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Josh Kupershmidt schmi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Josh Kupershmidt schmi...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think this is basically the right approach but I found what you
On tis, 2011-07-26 at 09:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Josh Kupershmidt
schmi...@gmail.com wrote:
That seems like a good way to document this; patch for master
updated.
I avoided mucking with the documentation for COMMENT ON RULE and
COMMENT ON TRIGGER
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On tis, 2011-07-26 at 09:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Josh Kupershmidt
schmi...@gmail.com wrote:
That seems like a good way to document this; patch for master
updated.
I avoided
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
I would like to argue for reverting this. If you want to word-smith
details like this, relation doesn't carry any additional meaning. PG
hackers know that internally, a relation is a table, view, index,
sequence, etc.,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Josh Kupershmidt schmi...@gmail.com wrote:
That seems like a good way to document this; patch for master updated.
I avoided mucking with the documentation for COMMENT ON RULE and
COMMENT ON TRIGGER this time; they both say table when they really
mean table or
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Josh Kupershmidt schmi...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is basically the right approach but I found what you did
here a bit wordy, so I simplified it, committed it, and back-patched
to
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Josh Kupershmidt schmi...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a small patch against branch 8.4 to mention support for COMMENT
ON index_name.column_name.
I am not in favor of this - because we'd
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Josh Kupershmidt schmi...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a small patch against branch 8.4 to mention support for COMMENT
ON index_name.column_name.
I am not in favor of this - because we'd also need to mention every
other relkind that can support comments. I think if
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Josh Kupershmidt schmi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
After a bit of review of the archives, the somebody was me:
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
After a bit of review of the archives, the somebody was me:
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.gita=commitdiffh=b7d67954456f15762c04e5269b64adc88dcd0860
and this thread was the discussion about it:
Hi all,
The psql output for \d+ on indexes, sequences, and views is rather
bogus. Examples below from the SQL at bottom.
So, if you look at \d+ newtbl, the right-most column named Description
should display any comments attached to newtbl's columns. You should
see bcol column comment as the
Josh Kupershmidt schmi...@gmail.com writes:
So, if you look at \d+ newtbl, the right-most column named Description
should display any comments attached to newtbl's columns. You should
see bcol column comment as the Description for column bcol. That
works OK.
Right.
Now, try this:
test=#
I wrote:
Josh Kupershmidt schmi...@gmail.com writes:
What's the Description displayed in that table?
What it ought to be is the comment (if any) attached to the index's
column. Up through 8.4 this worked as expected, but in 9.0 and up
somebody seems to have disallowed comments on index
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I wrote:
Josh Kupershmidt schmi...@gmail.com writes:
What's the Description displayed in that table?
What it ought to be is the comment (if any) attached to the index's
column. Up through 8.4 this worked as expected, but
26 matches
Mail list logo
