At 2008-07-15 20:28:39 +0530, ams(at)oryx(dot)com wrote:
>
> > I doubt we'd consider accepting a patch done this way.
>
> Yes, it's much too ugly to live.
Though I must say it would have been even MORE horrible to copy all this
code into the backend to make pg_get_functiondef(), notwithstanding the
extra utility of a generally-callable function.
But what I'm wondering, since Gavin said he once had a working version
of this patch (i.e. \ef) which he somehow lost, is how he approached the
problem at the time.
Gavin? Do you remember? Was it horrible?
-- ams