From: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, PosTGrESql hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Display oprcode and its volatility in \do+ |
Date: | 2014-02-21 10:56:15 |
Message-ID: | CABRT9RAwHNSKMJBaBi4PaH+O-X2T1Ac6ZEQsLriRTxSvEBry3A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> but adding
> volatility here seems like probably a waste of valuable terminal width.
> I think that the vast majority of operators have immutable or at worst
> stable underlying functions, so this doesn't seem like the first bit
> of information I'd need about the underlying function.
For a data point, just today I wanted to look up the volatility of
pg_trgm operators, which made me remember this patch. The \do+ output
is narrow enough, I think an extra volatility column wouldn't be too
bad.
But even just having the function name is a huge improvement, at least
that allows looking up volatility using \commands without accessing
pg_operator directly.
Regards,
Marti
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Atri Sharma | 2014-02-21 11:00:30 | Re: Proposal: IMPORT FOREIGN SCHEMA statement. |
Previous Message | Ronan Dunklau | 2014-02-21 10:31:43 | Proposal: IMPORT FOREIGN SCHEMA statement. |