| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)oryx(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] "\ef <function>" in psql |
| Date: | 2008-07-23 14:50:03 |
| Message-ID: | 15044.1216824603@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)oryx(dot)com> writes:
> At 2008-07-17 18:28:19 -0400, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us wrote:
>> It wouldn't take a whole lot to convince me that a pg_get_functiondef
>> would be useful, although I don't foresee either of those applications
>> wanting to use it because of their backward-compatibility constraints.
> What would the function return? "CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION ..."? Would
> that be good enough for everyone who might want to call it?
I think I'd go with CREATE FUNCTION for simplicity. It would be easy
enough for something like \ef to splice in OR REPLACE before shipping
the command back to the server.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2008-07-23 14:59:01 | Re: [PATCH] "\ef <function>" in psql |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-07-23 14:43:00 | Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? |