| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add support to COMMENT ON CURRENT DATABASE |
| Date: | 2017-01-09 18:34:03 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoboWs6UPvkm5RENmQ9BNQxVAr6uYOHdR+FwvO1KNj13vw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)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? AFAICS, that doesn't require reserving
anything new at all, and it also looks more SQL-ish to me. SQL
generally tries to emulate English, and I don't normally
speak_hyphenated_words.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-01-09 18:40:30 | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-01-09 18:29:19 | Re: _hash_addovflpage has a bug |