From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Erik Wienhold <ewie(at)ewie(dot)name> |
Cc: | Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: psql: Add leakproof field to \dAo+ meta-command results |
Date: | 2024-11-04 11:00:41 |
Message-ID: | CAEZATCXnnuORE2BoGwHw2zbtVvsPOLhbfVmEk9GxRzK+x3OW-Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 2024-07-01 15:08 +0200, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> I would like to propose to add a new field to psql's \dAo+ meta-command
> to show whether the underlying function of an operator is leak-proof.
>
I agree that this is useful information to have, but why add it to
\dAo+ instead of \do+? Taking the example from the original thread,
when writing a query containing 'tsvector @@ tsquery', it's much more
obvious to use "\do+ @@" to check if it's leakproof, rather than
"\dAo+ gin".
Perhaps it would be useful to have this in \df+ output as well.
I notice that this patch spells "leakproof" with a hyphen. IMO
leakproof should not have a hyphen -- at least, that's how I naturally
spell it, and I think that's more common, and it matches the SQL
syntax.
We haven't been consistent about that in the docs and code comments so
far though, so I think we should make a decision, and then standardise
on whatever people decide.
Regards,
Dean
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2024-11-04 11:24:48 | Re: define pg_structiszero(addr, s, r) |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2024-11-04 10:54:47 | Re: Pgoutput not capturing the generated columns |