On 1/16/14 4:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to> writes:
>> On 1/16/14 9:53 AM, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
>>> Even I personally felt the Function and Volatility is nice to have info
>>> into \do+.
>
> FWIW, I'm on board with the idea of printing the oprcode, 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.
Completely unscientifically, 50% of the time I've wanted to know the
oprcode has been because I wanted to know its volatility (exactly
because of the stable oprcodes we have). It seemed like a useful
addition, but I don't feel that strongly about it.
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
