Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE
Дата
Msg-id 25550.1519931373@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE  (Jing Wang <jingwangian@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE  (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Jing Wang <jingwangian@gmail.com> writes:
> [ support_CURRENT_DATABASE_keyword_v4.7.patch ]

TBH, I think we should reject this patch.  While it's not huge,
it's not trivial either, and I find the grammar changes rather ugly.
The argument for using the feature to fix pg_dump issues has evaporated,
but I don't see anything in the discussion suggesting that people see
a need for it beyond that.

I particularly object to inventing a CURRENT_DATABASE parameterless
function.  That's encroaching on user namespace to no purpose whatever,
as we already have a perfectly good regular function for that.

Also, from a user standpoint, turning CURRENT_DATABASE into a fully
reserved word seems like a bad idea.  If nothing else, that breaks
queries that are relying on the existing current_database() function.
The parallel to CURRENT_ROLE is not very good, because there at least
we can point to the SQL spec and say it's reserved according to the
standard.  CURRENT_DATABASE has no such excuse.

            regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Peter Geoghegan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning