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?
regards, tom lane
