| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_settings view |
| Date: | 2002-08-11 01:14:07 |
| Message-ID: | 3D55BA5F.9080206@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
>>The attached patch takes advantage of this, moving
>>show_all_settings() from contrib/tablefunc into the backend (renamed
>>all_settings().
> That change of name seems like a step backwards to me; it's not more
> intuitive, and it does seem more likely to conflict with user functions.
>
> Actually, if this is going to be primarily a support function for a
> view, I wonder if it should be pg_show_all_settings.
I agree. Here's a new patch.
For a similar reason I was thinking that only the system view should be
documented, not the function. Is that the right thing to do?
Joe
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| all_settings.2002.08.10.2.patch | text/plain | 34.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-11 01:21:39 | Re: pg_settings view |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-11 00:33:39 | Re: pg_settings view |