On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy@gmail.com> wrote:
> That seems like a good way to document this; patch for master updated.
> I avoided mucking with the documentation for COMMENT ON RULE and
> COMMENT ON TRIGGER this time; they both say "table" when they really
> mean "table or view", but maybe trying to differentiate between
> "table", "table_or_view", and "relation" will make things overly
> complicated.
I think this is basically the right approach but I found what you did
here a bit wordy, so I simplified it, committed it, and back-patched
to 9.0 with suitable adjustment. Hopefully I didn't simplify it into
a form you don't like.
>>> Also, a patch against master to:
>>> * get rid of the bogus "Description" outputs for \d+ sequence_name
>>> and \d+ index_name
>>
>> This part looks OK, but instead of doing a negative test (not-index,
>> not-sequence) let's have it do a positive test, for the same types
>> comment.c allows.
>
> Right, fixed.
Committed this part to head with minor tweaks.
>>> And while I'm messing with this, some further nitpicks about psql not
>>> addressed by these patches:
>>> * The "Storage" column for \d+ sequence_name is correct, I suppose,
>>> but repetitive
>>
>> I'm OK with removing that.
>
> Hrm, would it be better to keep that Storage bit around in some
> non-repetitive form, maybe on its own line below the table output?
Well, I don't really see that it has any value. I'd probably just
leave it the way it is, but if we're going to change something, I
would favor removing it over relocating it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
