From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add support to COMMENT ON CURRENT DATABASE |
Date: | 2017-01-09 20:14:23 |
Message-ID: | a0433144-2b8a-7aaf-cb7d-4cb23688948a@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/9/17 1:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 1/3/17 11:52 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>> We will need to make CURRENT_DATABASE a reserved keyword. But I like
>>> this idea more than COMMENT ON CURRENT DATABASE.
>>
>> We already have the reserved key word CURRENT_CATALOG, which is the
>> standard spelling. But I wouldn't be bothered if we made
>> CURRENT_DATABASE somewhat reserved as well.
>
> Maybe I'm just lacking in imagination, but what's the argument against
> spelling it CURRENT DATABASE?
To achieve consistent support for specifying the current database, we
would need to change the grammar for every command involving databases.
And it would also set a precedent for similar commands, such as current
user/role. Plus support in psql, pg_dump, etc. would get more complicated.
Instead, it would be simpler to define a grammar symbol like
database_name: ColId | CURRENT_DATABASE
and make a small analogous change in objectaddress.c and you're done.
Compare rolespec in gram.y.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-01-09 20:15:53 | Re: Add support to COMMENT ON CURRENT DATABASE |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2017-01-09 20:14:19 | Re: Add support to COMMENT ON CURRENT DATABASE |