| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)gluefinance(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Herrera Alvaro <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug in pg_describe_object |
| Date: | 2011-01-11 15:59:06 |
| Message-ID: | 18558.1294761546@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Not really. AFAIR, there are two cases that exist in practice,
>> depending on which AM you're talking about:
>>
>> 1. The recorded types match the input types of the operator/function
>> (btree & hash).
>> 2. The recorded types are always the same as the opclass's input type
>> (gist & gin).
>>
>> In neither case does printing those types really add much information.
>> That's why it's not there now.
> I don't get it. If two different items that exist in the system out
> of the box have the same description, it seems clear that relevant
> piece of disambiguating information exists nowhere in the description
> string.
The "relevant piece of disambiguating information" is the function
name+parameters in the first case, or the opclass name in the second.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-11 16:03:42 | Re: Fwd: [TESTERS] [TEST REPORT] 9.1Alpha3 Feature E.1.4.7.2 in release notes. |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-01-11 15:57:37 | Re: Add function dependencies |