| From: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)gluefinance(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(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 18:47:55 |
| Message-ID: | 1294771675.14741.5.camel@jansson |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 11:43 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> If that's what you're after, getObjectDescription is entirely
> unsuitable, because of the fact that its results are dependent
> on search path and language settings.
>
> regards, tom lane
Agreed, and as long as the additional information added to the
description by my patch is not useful for any other purpose I see no
reason for applying it.
So would anyone be confused by a description of pg_amproc not including
the types? I personally have no idea since I have not had to work with
indexes enough to say.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-01-11 18:49:47 | Re: SSI and 2PC |
| Previous Message | Radosław Smogura | 2011-01-11 18:46:33 | Re: Fwd: Weird issues when reading UDT from stored function |