Re: TODO item: Allow more complex user/database default GUC settings
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: TODO item: Allow more complex user/database default GUC settings |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 0A4BA455-38B6-4510-9DF1-24CF597091D1@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: TODO item: Allow more complex user/database default GUC settings (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: TODO item: Allow more complex user/database default
GUC settings
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sep 26, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes: >> Right, that works. Updated patch attached; should solve the issues >> raised in the thread. I renamed the catalog pg_db_role_setting as >> suggested by Tom. >> ... >> I have also added a view, whose only purpose is to convert the role >> and >> database OIDs into names. It's been named pg_db_role_settings, but >> if >> anyone has a better suggestion I'm all ears. > > I dislike the idea of having a catalog and a view whose names are the > same except for a plural. It's confusing as heck, because no one will > remember which is which. > > Since pg_settings is the existing user view, I think > pg_db_role_settings > is a reasonable choice for the new view, but then we need a different > name for the catalog. The only thing that comes to mind right now is > "pg_db_role_default", but I don't like it much. Anybody have other > suggestions? The problem of having both a table and a closely related view is, IME, one that comes up a lot. I think you just need to pick a convention and stick with it. Mine is to append "_view" to the table name. Renaming the underlying table doesn't seem like it helps at all. ...Robert
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: