On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Josh Kupershmidt <schmi...@gmail.com> writes: >> [ plpgsql's comment is now attached to the extension, not the PL itself ] > >> So, basically, I would like to have that comment show up for the first >> query. I imagine this could be fixed quite easily by adding: >> COMMENT ON PROCEDURAL LANGUAGE plpgsql IS 'PL/pgSQL procedural language'; > > I can't get excited about adding duplicative comments at different > semantic levels.
I admit I don't like the idea of duplicating comments either :-( Though maybe the extension comment could be tweaked to 'Extension supplying PL/pgSQL procedural language', or something like that. > We just went through an exercise to suppress comments on functions that > are meant to be accessed through operators, and this seems like much the > same kind of situation. I think it will not be long before COMMENT ON > PROCEDURAL LANGUAGE is a historical curiosity, because everybody will > ship their PLs as extensions and the comment on the extension will be > the thing to look at. IOW, the fact that there even is a database > object type "procedural language" will soon be an implementation detail > of interest only to PL authors. > > Or, perhaps more concretely: if we do as you suggest, won't \dd be > putting out two identical comments on two different kinds of objects, > and won't people find that confusing and inconvenient? Well, currently I believe \dd shows comments for neither languages nor extensions. And IMO it doesn't need to, either: these should properly be handled by \dx and \dL, respectively. (The proposed pg_comments view would show 'plpgsql' twice, once as objtype = language, and once as objtype = extension -- I agree that's not ideal). >> ... And if you're wondering why I care >> about any of this, it's because I'd like to fix up psql's \dL command >> to display the comments attached to procedural languages, and I'd >> rather not have to special-case plpgsql. > > Well, all four PLs supplied with core work the same way here, so a > special case targeted at only plpgsql would be quite wrong anyway. Not sure I follow you here... the COMMENT for plpgsql is in a different place than for 'c', 'internal', and 'sql', which is what I'm on about. Anyways, if you're not keen on adding in another comment for plpgsql, do you have a suggestion on how to make \dL display the comments for all languages? Josh -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
