Horton

Re: Bug in pg_describe_object, patch v2

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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: 2011-01-23T17:39:10Z
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

On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> And yet ... and yet ... if you adopt the position that what we're going
> to print is "amproc item: referenced procedure", then it's not entirely
> clear why the amproc item description shouldn't be complete. The
> argument that it's redundant with the procedure description gets a lot
> weaker as soon as you look at them as two separate items.  Ditto amop.
> And having to add a lot of otherwise-useless code to suppress the
> redundancy surely isn't very attractive.

I couldn't agree more.  Sorry if I didn't explain that concern clearly
enough upthread.

> So I guess I'm coming around to the idea that we want something not too
> much bigger than Andreas' original patch, but applying to both amop and
> amproc, and putting the operator/function description at the end.

That's fine with me.  I think the principal argument for failing to
remove it entirely is that we've traditionally had it there, but IMHO
moving in the direction of treating them as separate objects is much
more clear and an altogether better approach.

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