On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Josh Kupershmidt <schmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > That seems like a good way to document this; patch for master updated. > I avoided mucking with the documentation for COMMENT ON RULE and > COMMENT ON TRIGGER this time; they both say "table" when they really > mean "table or view", but maybe trying to differentiate between > "table", "table_or_view", and "relation" will make things overly > complicated.
I think this is basically the right approach but I found what you did here a bit wordy, so I simplified it, committed it, and back-patched to 9.0 with suitable adjustment. Hopefully I didn't simplify it into a form you don't like. >>> 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. > > Right, fixed. Committed this part to head with minor tweaks. >>> 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. > > Hrm, would it be better to keep that Storage bit around in some > non-repetitive form, maybe on its own line below the table output? Well, I don't really see that it has any value. I'd probably just leave it the way it is, but if we're going to change something, I would favor removing it over relocating it. -- 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
