On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 1/9/17 1:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Peter Eisentraut > > <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> On 1/3/17 11:52 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > >>> We will need to make CURRENT_DATABASE a reserved keyword. But I like > >>> this idea more than COMMENT ON CURRENT DATABASE. > >> > >> We already have the reserved key word CURRENT_CATALOG, which is the > >> standard spelling. But I wouldn't be bothered if we made > >> CURRENT_DATABASE somewhat reserved as well. > > > > Maybe I'm just lacking in imagination, but what's the argument against > > spelling it CURRENT DATABASE? > > To achieve consistent support for specifying the current database, we > would need to change the grammar for every command involving databases. > And it would also set a precedent for similar commands, such as current > user/role. Plus support in psql, pg_dump, etc. would get more complicated. > > Instead, it would be simpler to define a grammar symbol like > > database_name: ColId | CURRENT_DATABASE > > and make a small analogous change in objectaddress.c and you're done. > > Compare rolespec in gram.y. >
Ok, but doing in that way the syntax would be: COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE IS 'comment'; Regards, -- Fabrízio de Royes Mello Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL >> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br >> Blog: http://fabriziomello.github.io >> Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello >> Github: http://github.com/fabriziomello
