On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:42 PM, David G. Johnston > > <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The fact that pg_dump is emitting COMMENT ON DATABASE at all is > > fundamentally wrong given the existing division-of-labor decisions, > > namely that pg_dump is responsible for objects within a database > > not for database-level properties. > > > I think a while back somebody had the idea of making COMMENT ON > > CURRENT_DATABASE or COMMENT ON CURRENT DATABASE work, which seems like > > an elegant solution to me. Of course, I just work here. > > I'm fairly annoyed at David for having selectively quoted from private > email in a public forum, but that was one of the points I touched on > in material that he cut.
> The point I tried to make to him is that > possibly COMMENT ON CURRENT DATABASE is a portion of a holistic solution, > but it's only a portion. I should have asked first and I'll take the heat for choosing to re-post publicly but I kept this aspect of your recommendation precisely because that was indeed your position. TL>> It's entirely possible that some feature like COMMENT ON CURRENT DATABASE TL>> would be a necessary component of a holistic solution, [ various other ON CURRENT commands elidded ] I'm all for an elegant solution here though at some point having a working solution now beats waiting for someone to willingly dive more deeply into pg_dump. I too seem to recall previous proposals for COMMON ON CURRENT DATABASE yet here we are... David J.
