Re: machine-parseable object descriptions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: machine-parseable object descriptions
Date: 2013-03-20 14:11:46
Message-ID: 1698.1363788706@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> The new identity column is amazingly verbose on things like pg_amproc entries:

> 10650 | 1 (pg_catalog.point, pg_catalog.point) of pg_catalog.point_ops for gist: pg_catalog.gist_point_consistent(pg_catalog.internal,pg_catalog.point,integer,pg_catalog.oid,pg_catalog.internal)

Uh ... isn't that confusing the *identity* of the pg_amproc entry with
its *content*? I would say that the function reference doesn't belong
there. You do need the rest. I would also suggest that you prepend
the word "function" (or "operator" for pg_amop), so that it reads like
"function 1 (typename, typename) of opfamilyname for amname".

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2013-03-20 14:27:35 Materialized views vs event triggers missing docs?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-03-20 14:01:56 Re: A few string fixed