On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 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.
For a data point, just today I wanted to look up the volatility of
pg_trgm operators, which made me remember this patch. The \do+ output
is narrow enough, I think an extra volatility column wouldn't be too
bad.
But even just having the function name is a huge improvement, at least
that allows looking up volatility using \commands without accessing
pg_operator directly.
Regards,
Marti
