| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: machine-parseable object descriptions |
| Date: | 2013-03-20 14:11:46 |
| Message-ID: | 1698.1363788706@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> The new identity column is amazingly verbose on things like pg_amproc entries:
> 10650 | 1 (pg_catalog.point, pg_catalog.point) of pg_catalog.point_ops for gist: pg_catalog.gist_point_consistent(pg_catalog.internal,pg_catalog.point,integer,pg_catalog.oid,pg_catalog.internal)
Uh ... isn't that confusing the *identity* of the pg_amproc entry with
its *content*? I would say that the function reference doesn't belong
there. You do need the rest. I would also suggest that you prepend
the word "function" (or "operator" for pg_amop), so that it reads like
"function 1 (typename, typename) of opfamilyname for amname".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2013-03-20 14:27:35 | Materialized views vs event triggers missing docs? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-03-20 14:01:56 | Re: A few string fixed |