Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy@gmail.com> writes:
> [ plpgsql's comment is now attached to the extension, not the PL itself ]
> So, basically, I would like to have that comment show up for the first
> query. I imagine this could be fixed quite easily by adding:
> COMMENT ON PROCEDURAL LANGUAGE plpgsql IS 'PL/pgSQL procedural language';
I can't get excited about adding duplicative comments at different
semantic levels.
We just went through an exercise to suppress comments on functions that
are meant to be accessed through operators, and this seems like much the
same kind of situation. I think it will not be long before COMMENT ON
PROCEDURAL LANGUAGE is a historical curiosity, because everybody will
ship their PLs as extensions and the comment on the extension will be
the thing to look at. IOW, the fact that there even is a database
object type "procedural language" will soon be an implementation detail
of interest only to PL authors.
Or, perhaps more concretely: if we do as you suggest, won't \dd be
putting out two identical comments on two different kinds of objects,
and won't people find that confusing and inconvenient?
> ... And if you're wondering why I care
> about any of this, it's because I'd like to fix up psql's \dL command
> to display the comments attached to procedural languages, and I'd
> rather not have to special-case plpgsql.
Well, all four PLs supplied with core work the same way here, so a
special case targeted at only plpgsql would be quite wrong anyway.
regards, tom lane