Re: Bug in pg_describe_object, patch v2

Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> writes:
> On Sat, 2011-01-15 at 10:36 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> But I can read the handwriting on the wall: if I want this done right,
>> I'm going to have to do it myself.

> Do I understand you correctly if I interpret what you would like to see
> is the same format used now in these cases?

Attached is a patch that does what I would consider an acceptable job of
printing these datatypes only when they're interesting. I still think
that this is largely a waste of code, but if people want it, this is
what to do. Testing this in the regression database, it fires on
(a) the entries where a binary-compatible hash function is used, and
(b) all the entries associated with the GIN operator family array_ops.
The latter happens because we've more or less arbitrarily crammed a
bunch of opclasses into the same opfamily.

One other point here is that I find messages like this a mite
unreadable:

function 1 (oidvector[], oidvector[]) btoidvectorcmp(oidvector,oidvector) of operator family array_ops for access method gin

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)

Comments?

regards, tom lane