On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Josh Kupershmidt <schmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here's a small patch against branch 8.4 to mention support for COMMENT > ON index_name.column_name.
I am not in favor of this - because we'd also need to mention every other relkind that can support comments. I think if we want to do something here we should change it to say relation_name, and then clarify what that means further down. Similarly with the patch for master. Also, if we're going to make a change here, we probably should make sure it matches the actual behavior. In master, that's to allow comments on columns of tables, views, composite types, and foreign tables. > Also, a patch against master to: > * get rid of the bogus "Description" outputs for \d+ sequence_name > and \d+ index_name This part looks OK, but instead of doing a negative test (not-index, not-sequence) let's have it do a positive test, for the same types comment.c allows. > And while I'm messing with this, some further nitpicks about psql not > addressed by these patches: > * The "Storage" column for \d+ sequence_name is correct, I suppose, > but repetitive I'm OK with removing that. > * The "Type" column for \dv+ view_name, \di+ index_name, \ds+ > sequence_name , etc. seems borderline useless.. shouldn't you know > what type you're looking at based on the backslash command you're > using? Not really. You can do something like this, for example: \dti+ ...to show both indexes and tables. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
