From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: describe objects, as in pg_depend |
Date: | 2010-11-17 15:39:49 |
Message-ID: | 1290008127-sup-8494@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié nov 17 12:20:06 -0300 2010:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> > A customer of ours (Enova Financial) requested the ability to describe
> > objects in pg_depend. The wiki contains a simplistic SQL snippet that
> > does the task, but only for some of the object types, and it's rather
> > ugly. It struck me that we could fulfill this very easily by exposing
> > the getObjectDescription() function at the SQL level, as in the attached
> > module.
>
> What's the point of the InvalidOid check? It seems like you're mostly
> just introducing a corner case: sometimes, but not always, the function
> will return NULL instead of failing for bad input. I think it should
> just fail always.
If the check is not there, the calling query will have to prevent the
function from being called on rows having OID=0 in pg_depend. (These
rows show up in the catalog for pinned objects). The query becomes
either incomplete (because you don't report pinned objects) or awkward
(because you have to insert a CASE expression to avoid calling the
function in that case).
I don't think it's all that necessary anyway. If the function goes in
without that check, it will still be a huge improvement over the statu
quo.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-11-17 15:43:00 | Re: Indent authentication overloading |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-17 15:39:04 | Re: Indent authentication overloading |