Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 7:52 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> My point is that this isn't a bug fix, it's more like moving the
>> goalposts on what getObjectDescription is supposed to do.
> I think that adding the types to the description string is a pretty
> sensible thing to do.
Not really. AFAIR, there are two cases that exist in practice,
depending on which AM you're talking about:
1. The recorded types match the input types of the operator/function (btree & hash).
2. The recorded types are always the same as the opclass's input type (gist & gin).
In neither case does printing those types really add much information.
That's why it's not there now.
regards, tom lane
