Re: Don't like getObjectDescription results for pg_amop/pg_amproc

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Don't like getObjectDescription results for pg_amop/pg_amproc
Date: 2019-08-15 13:48:00
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 2:08 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Or maybe we're just being too ambitious here and we should discard some of
>> this information. I'm not really sure that the format_operator result
>> can be included without complete loss of intelligibility.

> Could we discard one pair of types from output?

Yeah, it would help to stop using format_operator and just print the
bare name of the operator. (format_operator can actually make things
a whole lot worse than depicted in my example, because it may insist
on schema-qualification and double-quoting.) In principle that could
be ambiguous ... but the pg_amop entry has already been identified fully,
and I don't think it needs to be part of the charter of this printout
to *also* identify the underlying operator with complete precision.

I'm still not sure how to cram the operator name into the output
without using a colon, though.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrey Borodin 2019-08-15 13:57:30 Re: Do not check unlogged indexes on standby
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2019-08-15 12:25:07 Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS)