Re: [GENERAL] 8.1 observation

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Tony Caduto <tony_caduto(at)amsoftwaredesign(dot)com> writes:
>>> I just noticed that pronargs in pg_proc does not show the full arg
>>> count, seems only to show count of IN args.
>>> shouldn't this show the full arg count including in/out/inout?
>>
>> There was some discussion of that just a day or so ago; so far no one's
>> come up with a reasonable suggestion for what the output should look like.

> Is this a TODO? You don't really pass the OUT parameters as parameters
> to the function, so the current behavior seems fine to me.

It's not really fine, because the only info you see about the result
type is "record", which is less detail than you should get (or be able
to get, anyway --- perhaps only \df+ need show the OUT parameters).

A related gripe is that \df doesn't show parameter names, which is a
pretty big loss from a documentation standpoint.

The hard part is fitting all that info into a tabular display.
\df output already tends to exceed the width of a terminal window ...

regards, tom lane