Re: [PATCH] "\ef <function>" in psql

From: "Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Abhijit Menon-Sen" <ams(at)oryx(dot)com>, "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 14:59:01
Message-ID: e51f66da0807230759q3175fc0aqdf23dce157751b1e@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 7/23/08, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.

Please make it use full qualified names (schema.name) for both
function name and result types. Current search_path juggling
the pg_dump does is major PITA.

--
marko

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-07-23 14:59:20 Re: WITH RECUSIVE patches 0723
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-07-23 14:50:03 Re: [PATCH] "\ef <function>" in psql