| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RFC: ALTER SYSTEM [...] COMMENT |
| Date: | 2017-04-26 17:31:42 |
| Message-ID: | 8899.1493227902@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> 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
I think it's likely to be impossible to shoehorn such a thing into every
type of CREATE command without making COMMENT a fully reserved word,
which is going to be a very hard sell.
> 2. Make it so comments are appended not replaced.
Backwards compatibility fail ... not to mention that you haven't offered
an argument as to why everyone would think this is an improvement.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2017-04-26 17:35:04 | Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-04-26 17:25:39 | Re: StandbyRecoverPreparedTransactions recovers subtrans links incorrectly |