Обсуждение: COMMENT on function's arguments
Does it make sense to have a comment on function's arguments? Of course it is possible to include these comments in a function's comment, but may be better to have them in more formalized way like comments on columns of a table. IDEs may use this information when providing hints for a function like in other languages.
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? Of course it > is possible to include these comments in a function's comment, but may be > better to have them in more formalized way like comments on columns of a > table. IDEs may use this information when providing hints for a function > like in other languages. 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. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
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