On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 10:14:21AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 7/3/16 11:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > I can see the reasoning for > > allowing COMMENT in a table column definition, but the argument for > > allowing it in simpler CREATEs seems tissue-thin: > > > > CREATE FUNCTION foo(int) RETURNS ... ; > > COMMENT ON FUNCTION foo(int) IS 'blah'; > > > > vs > > > > CREATE FUNCTION foo(int) RETURNS ... > > WITH (COMMENT 'blah'); > > > > Not much of a keystroke savings, nor is the comment noticeably > > "closer" to its object than before. > > I had actually been thinking about a similar proposal, but specifically > for CREATE FUNCTION. But the syntax would have to put it above the > function body, not below it. I think the CREATE FUNCTION syntax could > actually handle that.
For what it's worth, I tend to put the function body last. That's just my taste, though. Would it be hard to keep the ability to permute the stuff after CREATE FUNCTION (args) RETURNS [SETOF] type as we have it now? Best, David. -- David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers