Re: Bug in pg_describe_object, patch v2

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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