Craig Ringer <cr...@postnewspapers.com.au> writes:
> What gets me with Pg's COMMENT ON is the way the comments have to be
> separate from, and after, the objects they refer to. IMO it'd be
> significantly preferable to have something like:
> CREATE TABLE X (
> somepk integer primary key,
> cost numeric(10,2) COMMENT 'blah blah',
> );
> .. with a similar clause for CONSTRAINT.
> Is there any particular objection to doing things this way?
You're infringing on SQL-standard syntax space if you do that.
Now maybe they'll never define some conflicting extension to
the CREATE TABLE syntax, but it seems to me to be taking a risk
for not a whole lot of gain.
Now, if you could persuade the SQL committee to standardize
syntax like the above, that'd be great.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
