Re: Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation on "pg_database"
От | Stephen Frost |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation on "pg_database" |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20130105193152.GV16126@tamriel.snowman.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation on "pg_database" (Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation
on "pg_database"
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
* Fabrízio de Royes Mello (fabriziomello@gmail.com) wrote: > But those tables are filled only when we execute COMMENT ON statement... > then your idea is create a 'null' comment every time we create a single > object... is it? Yes, and have the actual 'description' field (as it's variable) at the end of the catalog. Regarding the semantics of it- I was thinking about how directories and unix files work. Basically, adding or removing a sub-object would update the alter time on the object itself, changing an already existing object or sub-object would update only the object/sub-object's alter time. Creating an object or sub/object would set its create time and alter time to the same value. I would distinguish 'create' from 'ctime', however, and have our 'create' time be only the actual *creation* time of the object. ALTER table OWNER TO user; would update "table"s alter time. Open to other thoughts on this and perhaps we should create a wiki page to start documentating the semantics. Once we get agreement there, it's just a bit of code. :) Thanks, Stephen
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: