Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE
Date
Msg-id 25566.1520353517@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> David Steele wrote:
>> Based on Tom's feedback, and hearing no opinions to the contrary, I have
>> marked this patch Rejected.

> I think I opine contrarywise, but I haven't made time to review the
> status of this in detail.  I'm fine with keeping it rejected for now,
> but I reserve the option to revive it in the future.

I'm fine with reviving it if someone can find a way around the new-
reserved-word problem.  But that's gonna be a bit hard given that
the patch wants to do 

database_name:
            ColId
            | CURRENT_DATABASE

You might be able to preserve the accessibility of the current_database()
function by making CURRENT_DATABASE into a type_func_name_keyword instead
of a fully-reserved word.  But that's ugly (I think you'd need a single-
purpose production for it to be used as a function), and you've still
broken any SQL code using "current_database" as a table or column name.
I'm dubious that the remaining use-case for the feature is worth it.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robbie Harwood
Date:
Subject: Re: Kerberos test suite
Next
From: Arthur Zakirov
Date:
Subject: Re: Prefix operator for text and spgist support