stewart at ugelow.com
Thu Apr 13 22:39:45 GMT 2006
Is "SELECT foo_id FROM $wpdb->meta WHERE foo_id = '234' and meta_type
= 'comment'" that much more confusing than "SELECT foo_id FROM
$wpdb->commentmeta WHERE foo_id = '234'" ?
Otherwise we're going to end up with tables (and associated handler
functions) for categorymeta, tagmeta, geometa, and even metameta in
the near future. :)
On 4/13/06, David Chait <davebytes at comcast.net> wrote:
> You do a query on foo ID #234. Is that comment #234, post #234, user
> #234...? Three tables as there are three source tables, all with
> overlapping keys...
> At least, imho. ;)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stewart Ugelow" <stewart at ugelow.com>
> To: <wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 5:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [wp-hackers] geocomments?
> On 4/13/06, Mark Jaquith <mark.wordpress at txfx.net> wrote:
> > Not yet, but I'd really like to get comment meta into WP 2.1 or the
> > version after. Couldn't find a ticket for it, so I made one:
> Just out of curiousity: why create an entirely new table?
> Both usermeta and postmeta right now have a schema of meta_id, foo_id,
> meta_key, meta_value. Couldn't we just add a meta_type column and have
> a single-bullet solution that covers all future instances of metas?
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
More information about the wp-hackers