Re: Operator Comments - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Rod Taylor
Subject Re: Operator Comments
Date
Msg-id 034801c1fa07$5ec8d660$0f02000a@jester
Whole thread Raw
In response to Operator Comments  ("Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>)
Responses Re: Operator Comments  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Indeed...

Comment on operator adds the comment to the procedures, and drop
operator removes comments from pg_operator, leaving left over entries
in pg_description.

Looks like CommentOperator goes to quite a bit of work (5 lines) to
accomplish fetching the procedure and states specifically it's not a
bug.  In which case RemoveOperator needs to drop comments by the
procID as well.
--
Rod
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
To: <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 5:03 PM
Subject: [HACKERS] Operator Comments


> During some testing of pgAdmin's internals whilst adding schema
support
> I noticed that altering or setting a comment on an operator actually
> sets the comment on the operator function.
>
> In other words, change the comment on testschema.+(int4, int4) and
the
> comment is actually set on the function pg_catalog.int4pl(int4,
int4).
>
> Is this behaviour correct? I would have expected the pg_description
> entry for the comment to reference the oid of the operator itself,
so
> each operator and int4pl(int4, int4) can all have distinct comments.
>
> Regards Dave.
>
> ---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Rod Taylor"
Date:
Subject: Re: TRUNCATE
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Operator Comments