> Hm. Evidently not :-(. The COMMENT ON DATABASE facility is a bit bogus > anyway (since there's no way to make the comments visible across > databases). You might be best advised not to use it. > > Hackers: this seems like an extremely bad side-effect of what we thought > was a simple addition of a helpful check. I am thinking we should > either remove the check again, or downgrade it to a WARNING (though I'm > not quite sure how to phrase the warning ...). Any thoughts?
How about going the other way and removing the requirement to explicitly state the database? COMMENT ON DATABASE IS 'This comment is on the current database.';
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
