Re: COMMENT on function's arguments
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: COMMENT on function's arguments |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 28701.1339777087@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: COMMENT on function's arguments (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Vlad Arkhipov <arhipov@dc.baikal.ru> wrote: >> Does it make sense to have a comment on function's arguments? > This would be somewhat tricky, because our COMMENT support assumes > that the object upon which we're commenting has an ObjectAddress, and > individual arguments to a function don't, although perhaps the > sub-object-id stuff that we currently use to handle comments on table > columns could be extended to handle this case. I guess I wouldn't > object to a well-done patch that made this work, but creating such a > patch seems likely to be tricky, owing to the fact that there's > nothing in the system that thinks of the individual arguments to a > function as separate objects at present. Also, once you'd created the infrastructure needed to *store* such comments, what would you actually *do* with them? I find it hard to imagine squeezing them into \df+ displays, for instance, without impossible clutter. Like Robert, I stand ready to be proven wrong by a well-designed patch; but this seems like something that would take a lot more work than it's really worth. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: