From: | Jim Nasby <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
Cc: | "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: system info functions |
Date: | 2006-07-07 21:04:06 |
Message-ID: | 1181242D-2115-4B4A-9B11-5081EF8DCAB7@pervasive.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jul 4, 2006, at 3:35 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
>> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Neil Conway
>> Sent: 04 July 2006 05:53
>> To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
>> Subject: [HACKERS] system info functions
>>
>> (1) The docs claim that pg_get_viewdef() returns the "CREATE VIEW
>> command for view", but that is clearly not the case:
>>
>> postgres=# create view v1 as select 1;
>> CREATE VIEW
>> postgres=# select pg_get_viewdef('v1'::regclass::oid);
>> pg_get_viewdef
>> ----------------
>> SELECT 1;
>> (1 row)
>>
>> Should we change the documentation, or the implementation of
>> pg_get_viewdef()?
>
> Documentation, unless we want to break apps that use the function.
Though, it would be nice to get everything into a consistent state.
Since some get_*def commands have to return the create statements, we
should probably move everything in that direction (or have two sets
of functions, but that seems rather overblown...).
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2006-07-07 21:09:56 | Re: set search_path in dump output considered harmful |
Previous Message | Beth Jen | 2006-07-07 17:25:53 | DISTINCT/Optimizer question |