From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: RFC: ALTER SYSTEM [...] COMMENT |
Date: | 2017-04-26 17:24:40 |
Message-ID: | 7d9da64d-aa77-df54-24ae-424f74b5dd55@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/26/2017 10:14 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> JD,
> Having COMMENT ON accept a general query whose result is then cast to
> text and stored as the comment would allow this to be done, eg:
>
> COMMENT ON table IS (pg_get_comment('table') || ' new text');
Dig it, although we probably want the equivalent of:
COMMENT ON table IS (pg_get_comment('table') || '\n\n' || ' new text');
Or something like that.
>
> We could also have new syntax along these lines, for this specific case:
>
> COMMENT ON table ADD ' new text';
>
> Though we have this pretty powerful language, seems a bit of a shame to
> invent something new for working with comments.
Agreed and I think that using existing COMMENT ON capability is likely
to get this pushed farther down the road.
I wouldn't fight hard to change it but really if we think about it, what
makes more sense from usability perspective?
CREATE TABLE foo() COMMENT IS
or
CREATE TABLE foo;
COMMENT ON TABLE foo IS
Thanks,
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-04-26 17:25:39 | Re: StandbyRecoverPreparedTransactions recovers subtrans links incorrectly |
Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2017-04-26 17:22:35 | Re: RFC: ALTER SYSTEM [...] COMMENT |