Neil Conway wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 05:15:43PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > nconway@klamath.dyndns.org (Neil Conway) writes:
> > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 01:21:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> I'm very unthrilled with this approach to faking up a composite type
> > >> for pg_show_locks to return.
> >
> > > As am I, and I agree that the proper long-term answer is some new
> > > infrastructure for adding builtin SRFs. However, I don't think that's
> > > a really good reason for rejecting the patch --
> >
> > I'm not wanting to reject the patch; I'm wanting to restructure it as
> > additions to lmgr.c plus a contrib module that includes the API function
> > and perhaps some sample views. The contrib module's install script
> > could avoid these pesky problems because it can just CREATE a dummy
> > table or view and then CREATE the function. Once we have a better
> > answer about declaring built-in SRFs, we can migrate the code into the
> > core.
>
> Personally, that doesn't strike me as a lot cleaner than just putting
> the code into the core in the first place. Since the changes to adapt
> the SRF to a new composite type scheme would be trivial (less than
> 20 lines of changes, probably less), I'd personally vote to include it
> in the core, and put up with a little bit of ugliness in initdb until
> we get a proper solution.
Agreed. We are not running a beauty context here. It is a TODO item
and users want it. Get it to into the core and fix it when the SRF API
improves.
I agree with Peter that it is better to rename it pg_lock*. The show
isn't needed and it makes it look more like our other system info
tables. Please resubmit your patch. Thanks.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
