Hi Jing, On 3/1/18 2:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jing Wang <jingwang...@gmail.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 da...@pgmasters.net
