Re: Bug in pg_describe_object - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Bug in pg_describe_object
Date
Msg-id 11595.1294791298@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Bug in pg_describe_object  (Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>)
Responses Re: Bug in pg_describe_object  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se> writes:
> On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 14:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It really shouldn't be useful to include those.  Attend what it says in
>> the fine manual for CREATE OPERATOR CLASS:

> Hm, that is not what I see when reading the source.

> There can exist several entries in pg_amproc for one operator family
> with the same short_number and function (both name and types).

We're cheating in a small number of places by using a binary-compatible
hash function to implement hashing for a datatype other than the one
it's declared to work on.  I don't think that the existence of that hack
means that getObjectDescription should bloat the descriptions of every
amproc entry with generally-useless information.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Something fishy about the current Makefiles
Next
From: "David E. Wheeler"
Date:
Subject: Re: arrays as pl/perl input arguments [PATCH]