On Sunday 29 February 2004 02:01, Tom Lane wrote: > Richard Huxton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I've been looking at storing $REVISION$ in comments for each object, so > > my install scripts can halt if there is a problem. Not wanting to use my > > only comment slot for this I was thinking about an extension to the > > COMMENT ON statement: > > COMMENT ON TABLE foo IS 'This is where I stroe my foos.'; > > COMMENT ON TABLE foo SECTION 'default' IS 'I meant store my foos.'; > > COMMENT ON TABLE foo SECTION 'revision' IS '1.19'; > > COMMENT ON TABLE foo SECTION 'bar' IS 'baz'; > > This seems a little, um, specialized. Why don't you just keep the info > in a user-defined table?
For the same reasons you don't store existing comments in a user-defined table: 1. It's convenient to have a standard (across providers) place for them. 2. It's meta-data, not data. 3. It gets dumped along with my table. If it's just a case of "looks like a waste of time" then I might well waste my time and do it. On the other hand, if it's a case of "unnecessary complication - don't want it in the code" then I'll not bother. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
