On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 01:06:49PM -0400, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Marko Tiikkaja <ma...@joh.to> wrote:
> >
> > What I would prefer is something like this:
> >
> >   f1 int NOT NULL COMMENT
> >     'the first field',
> >   f2 int NOT NULL COMMENT
> >     'the second field',
> > ...
> > );
> >
> > which would ensure the comments are both next to the field definition
> > they're documenting and that they make it all the way to the database. I
> > looked into the biggest products, and MySQL supports this syntax.  I
> > couldn't find any similar syntax in any other product.
> >
> >
> ​+1 for the idea - though restricting it to columns would not be ideal.

+1 for adding it to all the CREATEs whose objects support COMMENT.

Might something like

    CREATE ... [WITH (COMMENT $$Big honking comment here$$)]

for the explicit CREATE cases and something like

        id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY WITH (COMMENT 'Generated primary key, best find a 
natural one, too'),
        t TEXT NOT NULL WITH (COMMENT 'Really?  A single-letter name?!?'),

for cases where the CREATE isn't part of the syntax help alleviate the
keyword issue?

I suggested doing it this way because where there's one thing, in this
case a COMMENT, it's reasonable to expect that there will be others
and make that simpler to do.

David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to