Re: [HACKERS] For review: Server instrumentation patch

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I suppose as long it's just this one function at stake, we could imagine
>> fixing the pg_proc row after-the-fact (later in the initdb sequence).
>> Pretty klugy but something nicer could get done in the 8.2 time frame.

> Yes, see my earlier email --- we don't even document the return type of
> the function, nor does \df show it. This seems too hard to use.

> I am worried that if we improve things in 8.2, we would then be changing
> the API of the function.

Yeah, we would.

> Are the other functions returning records usable?

All the other ones are meant to be used via views, so it doesn't matter
so much. pg_stat_file can't very usefully be called through a view, so
we have a problem.

I'll see about installing an initdb-time kluge to make it use OUT
parameters.

regards, tom lane