On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr> writes:
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
(I was vaguely imagining that it could share most of the COMMENT
infrastructure --- but haven't looked yet).
Well the code footprint is quite small already.
Having now looked at it a bit closer, I think the syntax choice is a
complete wash from an implementation standpoint: either way, we'll have
a list of bison productions that build AlterObjectExtensionStmt nodes,
and it goes through the same way after that.  I do think that the
implementation will be a lot more compact if it relies on the COMMENT
infrastructure (ie, get_object_address), but that's an independent
choice.

So really it boils down to which syntax seems more natural and/or easier
to document.  As I said, I think a centralized ALTER EXTENSION syntax
has some advantages from the documentation standpoint; but that's not a
terribly strong argument, especially given that Dimitri has already done
a patch to document things the other way.

Preferences anyone?
The closest exstant parallel is probably:

ALTER SEQUENCE foo OWNED BY bar;

I think paralleling that would probably be the most SQL-ish thing to
do, but I can't get excited about it. The ALTER EXTENSION syntax will
be a lot more self-contained, with all of it one part of the grammar
and one part of the documentation. And you could even allow multiple
objects:

ALTER EXTENSION extension_name ADD object-description [, ...];

Which might be handy.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 17 of 33 | next ›
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-hackers @
categoriespostgresql
postedFeb 8, '11 at 4:54p
activeFeb 10, '11 at 4:59p
posts33
users5
websitepostgresql.org...
irc#postgresql

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase