From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | Richard Broersma <richard(dot)broersma(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: psql feature request (\dd+) |
Date: | 2010-05-15 02:15:36 |
Message-ID: | 12486.1273889736@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> What gets me with Pg's COMMENT ON is the way the comments have to be
> separate from, and after, the objects they refer to. IMO it'd be
> significantly preferable to have something like:
> CREATE TABLE X (
> somepk integer primary key,
> cost numeric(10,2) COMMENT 'blah blah',
> );
> .. with a similar clause for CONSTRAINT.
> Is there any particular objection to doing things this way?
You're infringing on SQL-standard syntax space if you do that.
Now maybe they'll never define some conflicting extension to
the CREATE TABLE syntax, but it seems to me to be taking a risk
for not a whole lot of gain.
Now, if you could persuade the SQL committee to standardize
syntax like the above, that'd be great.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2010-05-15 03:23:50 | Re: [HACKERS] List traffic |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2010-05-15 01:43:13 | Re: psql feature request (\dd+) |