From: | Mephysto <mephystoonhell(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Show stored function code |
Date: | 2012-03-29 07:10:26 |
Message-ID: | CAG0sfBUUsZW6AWbxt_qE-M95BJeA_Z5HnALAaEdw7dj=KeVArA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
Thank you very much for your help. I found that problem is in pgAdmin: I
think the problem is in showing multiline text content.
I tried to execute the same query in psql and it show function code
correctly. If I execute a search query in prosrc column it work done.
At this point I think that is a bug of pgAdmin.
Many thanks again.
Mephysto
On 29 March 2012 04:18, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Mephysto <mephystoonhell(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >> \df+ shows function code.
>
> > well, I'm suspecting operator error, because psql \df+ func queries
> > pg_proc. if you don't believe me, fire up psql with the -E switch and
> > it will echo all sql it sends to the server and you'll see it queries
> > pg_proc. take the query it runs, and gradually cut it down and you
> > should find the reason. perhaps line formatting is throwing you off
> > maybe.
>
> I'm wondering if the OP has accidentally created another table called
> "pg_proc". Usually the system version would come first in the search
> path, but maybe he's using a non-default search path? If this is the
> right guess, then the reason \df works is that it qualifies pg_proc
> as pg_catalog.pg_proc.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ennio-Sr | 2012-03-29 11:17:29 | Disruptive corruption of data during an update |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-03-29 02:18:20 | Re: Show stored function code |