Re: Bug in pg_describe_object - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Bug in pg_describe_object
Date
Msg-id 6406.1294772509@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  (Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se> writes:
> So would anyone be confused by a description of pg_amproc not including
> the types?

It really shouldn't be useful to include those.  Attend what it says in
the fine manual for CREATE OPERATOR CLASS:
In a FUNCTION clause, the operand data type(s) the function isintended to support, if different from the input data
type(s)ofthe function (for B-tree and hash indexes) or the class's datatype (for GIN and GiST indexes). These defaults
arealwayscorrect, so there is no point in specifying op_type in aFUNCTION clause in CREATE OPERATOR CLASS, but the
optionisprovided for consistency with the comparable syntax in ALTEROPERATOR FAMILY.
 

The reason the ALTER OPERATOR FAMILY DROP syntax has to include operand
types is that it lacks the full name/types of the referenced function.
Since getObjectDescription *does* provide those, it doesn't serve any
real purpose to repeat the information.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: Allowing multiple concurrent base backups
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Allowing multiple concurrent base backups