Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

Alvaro Herrera writes: > David Steele wrote: >> Based on Tom's feedback, and hearing no opinions to the contrary, I have >> marked this patch Rejected. > I think I opine contrarywise, but I haven't made time to review the > status of this in detail. I'm fine with

Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

Hi Álvaro, On 3/6/18 10:25 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > David Steele wrote: > >> On 3/1/18 2:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >>> TBH, I think we should reject this patch. While it's not huge, >>> it's not trivial either, and I find the grammar changes rather ugly. >>> The argument for using the

Re: Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

David Steele wrote: > On 3/1/18 2:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > > TBH, I think we should reject this patch. While it's not huge, > > it's not trivial either, and I find the grammar changes rather ugly. > > The argument for using the feature to fix pg_dump issues has evaporated, > > but I don't see

Re: Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

Hi Jing, On 3/1/18 2:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jing Wang writes: >> [ support_CURRENT_DATABASE_keyword_v4.7.patch ] > > TBH, I think we should reject this patch. While it's not huge, > it's not trivial either, and I find the grammar changes rather ugly. > The argument for

Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

Jing Wang writes: > [ support_CURRENT_DATABASE_keyword_v4.7.patch ] TBH, I think we should reject this patch. While it's not huge, it's not trivial either, and I find the grammar changes rather ugly. The argument for using the feature to fix pg_dump issues has evaporated,

Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

>Not surprisingly, this patch no longer applies in the wake of commit >b3f840120. Rather than rebasing the pg_dump portions, I would suggest >you just drop them. It has been removed from the pg_dump codes. >I notice some other patch application failures in dbcommands.c, >objectaddress.c, and

Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

Jing Wang writes: > [ support_CURRENT_DATABASE_keyword_v4.6.patch ] Not surprisingly, this patch no longer applies in the wake of commit b3f840120. Rather than rebasing the pg_dump portions, I would suggest you just drop them. It is no longer necessary for pg_dump to

Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

Hi Stephen and Thomas, Thanks your review comments. Enclosed please find the latest patch. >/src/backend/parser/gram.y: In function ‘base_yyparse’: >/src/backend/parser/gram.y:1160:19: warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types] >| IN_P DATABASE db_spec_name

Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

Greetings Jing, * Jing Wang (jingwang...@gmail.com) wrote: > I have rebased the patch on the latest version. Thanks! Looks like there's still more work to be done here, and unfortunately this ended up on a new thread somehow from the prior one. I've added this newer thread to the CF app too. >

Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Jing Wang wrote: > I have rebased the patch on the latest version. Hi Jing, According to my testing robot this fails make check-world (or presumably cd src/bin/pg_dump ; make check), here: t/001_basic.pl . ok # Failed test

Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

Hi, I have rebased the patch on the latest version. Because the CURRENT_DATABASE can not only being used on COMMENT ON statement but also on other statements as following list so the patch name is renamed to "support_CURRENT_DATABASE_keyword_vxx.patch". 1. COMMENT ON DATABASE

Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Jing Wang wrote: >> This is a patch for current_database working on ALTER ROLE/GRANT/REVOKE >> statements which should be applied after the previous

Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Jing Wang wrote: > Hi All, > > This is a patch for current_database working on ALTER ROLE/GRANT/REVOKE > statements which should be applied after the previous patch > "comment_on_current_database_no_pgdump_v4.4.patch". > > By using the

Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

Hi All, This is a patch for current_database working on ALTER ROLE/GRANT/REVOKE statements which should be applied after the previous patch "comment_on_current_database_no_pgdump_v4.4.patch". By using the patch the CURRENT_DATABASE can working in the following SQL statements: ALTER ROLE ... IN

Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE

Hi Nathan, Thanks for review comments. Enclosed please find the patch which has been updated according to your suggestion. The CURRENT_DATABASE can be used as following SQL statements and people can find information from sgml files: 1. COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE is ... 2.