On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > At the risk of opening a can of worms, if we're going to fix \dd, > shouldn't we fix it completely, and include comments on ALL the object > types that can have them? IIRC it's missing a bunch, not just > constraints.
You opened this can up, so I hope you like worms ;-) Let's break down the objects that the COMMENT docs say one can comment on. [Disclaimer: It's likely I've made some mistakes in this list, data was gleaned mostly from perusing describe.c] 1.) Comments displayed by \dd: TABLE AGGREGATE OPERATOR RULE FUNCTION INDEX SEQUENCE TRIGGER TYPE VIEW 2.) Comments displayed in the backslash commands for the object: AGGREGATE \da COLUMN \d+ tablename COLLATION \dO DATABASE \l+ EXTENSION \dx FUNCTION \df+ FOREIGN TABLE \d+ tablename (I think?) LARGE OBJECT \dl ROLE \dg+ SCHEMA \dn+ TABLESPACE \db+ TYPE \dT TEXT SEARCH CONFIGURATION \dF TEXT SEARCH DICTIONARY \dFd TEXT SEARCH PARSER \dFp TEXT SEARCH TEMPLATE \dFt 3.) Objects for which we don't display the comments anywhere: CAST CONSTRAINT (addressed by this patch) CONVERSION DOMAIN PROCEDURAL LANGUAGE 4.) My eyes are starting to glaze over, and I'm too lazy to figure out how or if comments for these objects are handled: FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER OPERATOR CLASS OPERATOR FAMILY SERVER > Another thought is that I wonder if it's really useful to have a > backslash commands that dumps out comments on many different object > types. ISTM that \dd is best suited as a command to show the comments for objects for which we don't have an individual backslash command, or objects for which it's not practical to show the comment in the backslash command. > In some cases, e.g. \db+, we include the description for the > object in the output of the backslash command that lists objects just > of that type, which seems like a better design. I agree that's the way to go for objects where such display is feasible (the backslash command produces columnar output, and we can just stick in a "comment" column). I wouldn't want to try to pollute, say, \d+ with comments about tables, rules, triggers, etc. But for the few objects displayed by both \dd and the object's respective backslash command (aggregates, types, and functions), I would be in favor of ripping out the \dd display. > Of course we have no > backslash command for constraints anyway.... Precisely, and I think there's a solid argument for putting constraints into bucket 1 above, as this patch does, since there's no good room to display constraint comments inside \d+, and there's no backslash command specifically for constraints. I was kind of hoping to avoid dealing with this can of worms with this simple patch, which by itself seems uncontroversial. If there's consensus that \dd and the other backslash commands need further reworking, I can probably devote a little more time to this. But let's not have the perfect be the enemy of the good. Josh -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
