From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] For review: Server instrumentation patch |
Date: | 2005-08-13 18:02:23 |
Message-ID: | 14548.1123956143@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-08-13 19:05:51 | Re: [HACKERS] For review: Server instrumentation patch |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-08-13 17:17:41 | Re: [HACKERS] For review: Server instrumentation patch |