Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Vlad Arkhipov <arhi...@dc.baikal.ru> wrote:
>> Does it make sense to have a comment on function's arguments?
> This would be somewhat tricky, because our COMMENT support assumes
> that the object upon which we're commenting has an ObjectAddress, and
> individual arguments to a function don't, although perhaps the
> sub-object-id stuff that we currently use to handle comments on table
> columns could be extended to handle this case. I guess I wouldn't
> object to a well-done patch that made this work, but creating such a
> patch seems likely to be tricky, owing to the fact that there's
> nothing in the system that thinks of the individual arguments to a
> function as separate objects at present.
Also, once you'd created the infrastructure needed to *store* such
comments, what would you actually *do* with them? I find it hard to
imagine squeezing them into \df+ displays, for instance, without
impossible clutter.
Like Robert, I stand ready to be proven wrong by a well-designed patch;
but this seems like something that would take a lot more work than
it's really worth.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
