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

Hi Jing,

On 3/1/18 2:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jing Wang <jingwangian(at)gmail(dot)com> 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,
> but I don't see anything in the discussion suggesting that people see
> a need for it beyond that.
>
> I particularly object to inventing a CURRENT_DATABASE parameterless
> function. That's encroaching on user namespace to no purpose whatever,
> as we already have a perfectly good regular function for that.
>
> Also, from a user standpoint, turning CURRENT_DATABASE into a fully
> reserved word seems like a bad idea. If nothing else, that breaks
> queries that are relying on the existing current_database() function.
> The parallel to CURRENT_ROLE is not very good, because there at least
> we can point to the SQL spec and say it's reserved according to the
> standard. CURRENT_DATABASE has no such excuse.

Based on Tom's feedback, and hearing no opinions to the contrary, I have
marked this patch Rejected.

Regards,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net