Re: Various bugs/issues
| От | Andreas Pflug |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Various bugs/issues |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 4187B288.3060703@pse-consulting.de обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Various bugs/issues (Alexander Borkowski <alexander.borkowski@abri.une.edu.au>) |
| Список | pgadmin-hackers |
Alexander Borkowski wrote: > 1. Changing the owner of a table, view, or domain, which is not in the > "public" schema does not work as the generated "ALTER ... OWNER TO ..." > statement lacks the schema qualification for the object whose owner is > to be changed. Instead the error message Fixed. > 2. Changing the name of an operator does not work either. The error > message is It's 8.0 only, disabled for older versions now. > 3. I tried to create a pl/pgsql function which accepts a text[] > argument. The dialog raises the following error message if I try to > create such a function: > > ERROR: type text[] does not exist. Extracted [] from quoting. Hopefully, nobody will use type names that include trailing []... Type handling really needs a major rewrite, but it's so boring... > 4. Earlier I changed the type of one of my columns in one of my tables > from varchar(64) to text. Unfortunately, during my first attempt I > selected the new type "text" in the column property dialog before > deleting the contents of the Length field, so the column type was > changed to text(64) instead of text, which apparently works fine in > queries. This is probably due to the fact that PostgreSQL stores these > types in the same binary format anyway. The problem is that the table > definition (with the text(64) column) saved as file and used to recreate > the table fails with a syntax error, so I would classifiy this as bug. This pre-8.0 alter column feature is a delicate thing... Fixed now. > 5. Creating a composite type requires at least two member fields to be > added (the OK button stays disabled until there are at least two members > defined). According to line 240 of src/ui/dlgType.cpp this is > intentional, but at least according to my PostgreSQL documentation it is > valid to have a composite type with just one field. IMHO this does make > sense, as one can create a table with only one column as well. Am I > missing something? This is subject to discussion. For most users, probably it's correct to restrict composite types to have >1 member; less doesn't make too much sense (I'd suggest a domain instead). Not everything that's legal is also sensible, so I'd opt to leave this a little restricted to reduce newbie's surprises. Committed to CVS, Thanks for your precise bug report! New win32 snapshot uploading soon. Regards, Andreas
В списке pgadmin-hackers по дате отправления: