Horton

Re: Bug in pg_describe_object, patch v2

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>, Joel Jacobson <joel@gluefinance.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr>, Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net>, Herrera Alvaro <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-01-23T02:50:47Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Add pg_describe_object function

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> If we were to go with this, I'd be strongly tempted to rearrange all
>> four of the messages involved to put the operator or function name
>> at the end, eg
>> 
>> function 1 (oidvector[], oidvector[]) of operator family array_ops for access method gin: btoidvectorcmp(oidvector,oidvector)

> I kind of wonder if it wouldn't be even better to just *delete* that
> from the thing altogether and write:

> function 1 (oidvector[], oidvector[]) of operator family array_ops for
> access method gin

> We're trying to represent the pg_amproc entry here, and including a
> bunch of details of the pg_proc entry to which it happens to point
> seems almost better to be confusing the issue.

Yeah, that occurred to me too.  However, the CREATE OPERATOR CLASS
syntax doesn't really draw a distinction between the referenced
function/operator and its reference in the opclass, and I'm not sure
users do either.  So I don't want to give up the details of the function
or operator.  But sticking them at the end after a colon might make it
clearer that the func/operator is referenced by the amproc or amop
entry, but is not the same thing.

			regards, tom lane