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: > > > > CREATE TABLE foo( > > 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 CREATE TABLE foo( 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. Best, David. -- 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 (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers