Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:42 PM, David G. Johnston > <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote: > The fact that pg_dump is emitting COMMENT ON DATABASE at all is > fundamentally wrong given the existing division-of-labor decisions, > namely that pg_dump is responsible for objects within a database > not for database-level properties.
> I think a while back somebody had the idea of making COMMENT ON > CURRENT_DATABASE or COMMENT ON CURRENT DATABASE work, which seems like > an elegant solution to me. Of course, I just work here.
I'm fairly annoyed at David for having selectively quoted from private email in a public forum, but that was one of the points I touched on in material that he cut.
The point I tried to make to him is that possibly COMMENT ON CURRENT DATABASE is a portion of a holistic solution, but it's only a portion.
I should have asked first and I'll take the heat for choosing to re-post publicly but I kept this aspect of your recommendation precisely because that was indeed your position.
TL>> It's entirely possible that some feature like COMMENT ON CURRENT DATABASE
TL>> would be a necessary component of a holistic solution, [ various other ON CURRENT commands elidded ]
I'm all for an elegant solution here though at some point having a working solution now beats waiting for someone to willingly dive more deeply into pg_dump. I too seem to recall previous proposals for COMMON ON CURRENT DATABASE yet here we are...
