On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello > > <fabriziomello@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> > If we ever implement something like > > >> >> > > > >> >> > COMMENT ON CURRENT_DATABASE IS ... > > >> >> > > > >> >> > it will be useful, because you will be able to restore a dump into > > >> >> > another database and have the comment apply to the target database. > > >> > > > >> > I think it's simple to implement, but how about pg_dump... we need to > > >> > add > > >> > new option (like --use-current-database) or am I missing something ? > > >> > > >> I think we'd just change it to use the new syntax, full stop. I see > > >> no need for an option. > > > > > > I'm returning on this... > > > > > > What's the reasonable syntaxes? > > > > > > COMMENT ON CURRENT DATABASE IS 'text'; > > > > > > or > > > > > > COMMENT ON DATABASE { CURRENT_DATABASE | object_name } IS 'text'; > > > > The second one would require making CURRENT_DATABASE a reserved > > keyword, and I'm not keen to create any more of those. I like the > > first one. The other alternative that may be worth considering is: > > > > COMMENT ON CURRENT_DATABASE IS 'text'; > > > > That doesn't require making CURRENT_DATABASE a reserved keyword, but > > it does require making it a keyword, and it doesn't look very SQL-ish. > > Still, we have a bunch of other CURRENT_FOO keywords. > > > > But I'm inclined to stick with your first proposal. > > > > Attached the patch to support "COMMENT ON CURRENT DATABASE IS ..." (including pg_dump). > > On my next spare time I'll send the "ALTER ROLE ... IN CURRENT DATABASE" patch. >
Looking at the patch again I realize the code is very ugly, so I'll rework the patch.
