Subject: Re: Adding column comment to information_schema.columns
From: Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>
To: Justin Clift <jc@telstra.net>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <40E4C367.2080303@telstra.net>
References: <40E37E3F.2050400@telstra.net> <22066.1088656403@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<40E3949F.6020201@telstra.net> <40E3BB25.4020804@pse-consulting.de>
	<k6xn3cph.fsf@bullysports.com> <40E4C305.4070309@familyhealth.com.au>
	<40E4C367.2080303@telstra.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1088769438.15415.1.camel@fuji.krosing.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 14:57:18 +0300

On R, 2004-07-02 at 05:07, Justin Clift wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >> There is a huge difference between adhering to a standard and limiting
> >> yourself to a standard.  The real question is whether PostgreSQL's
> >> goal is to support SQL standards, or whether PostgreSQL's goal is to
> >> give PostgreSQL users a useful set of tools.
> > 
> > 
> > There are literally _hundreds_ of fields we could add to the 
> > information_schema.  Either we add them all or we add none of them.
> 
> Well, if we add them (and they would be very useful I reckon) should we 
> ensure there's an obvious PG naming thing happening?
> 
> i.e.  pg_column_comment
> 
> or similar?  Maybe not "pg_" but you know what I mean.

IIRC we were recently told (in this thread) that the SQL standard tells
to end local customisations with underscore, so it would be
'column_comment_'

---------------
Hannu