On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
>> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>> (I was vaguely imagining that it could share most of the COMMENT
>>> infrastructure --- but haven't looked yet).
>> Well the code footprint is quite small already.
> Having now looked at it a bit closer, I think the syntax choice is a
> complete wash from an implementation standpoint: either way, we'll have
> a list of bison productions that build AlterObjectExtensionStmt nodes,
> and it goes through the same way after that. I do think that the
> implementation will be a lot more compact if it relies on the COMMENT
> infrastructure (ie, get_object_address), but that's an independent
> So really it boils down to which syntax seems more natural and/or easier
> to document. As I said, I think a centralized ALTER EXTENSION syntax
> has some advantages from the documentation standpoint; but that's not a
> terribly strong argument, especially given that Dimitri has already done
> a patch to document things the other way.
> Preferences anyone?
The closest exstant parallel is probably:
ALTER SEQUENCE foo OWNED BY bar;
I think paralleling that would probably be the most SQL-ish thing to
do, but I can't get excited about it. The ALTER EXTENSION syntax will
be a lot more self-contained, with all of it one part of the grammar
and one part of the documentation. And you could even allow multiple
ALTER EXTENSION extension_name ADD object-description [, ...];
Which might be handy.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-02-09 02:09:48|
|Subject: Re: SSI patch version 14|
|Previous:||From: Itagaki Takahiro||Date: 2011-02-09 01:55:05|
|Subject: Re: Error attribution in foreign scans|