Re: Add support to COMMENT ON CURRENT DATABASE

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 1/9/17 1:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > 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?
>
> 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