Re: bugfix: --echo-hidden is not supported by \sf statements - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josh Kupershmidt
Subject Re: bugfix: --echo-hidden is not supported by \sf statements
Date
Msg-id CAK3UJRHajPCwKm4GAZ+2pQARDkhAQqstWSh_bFqMDCUtfzbLag@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: bugfix: --echo-hidden is not supported by \sf statements  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Responses Re: bugfix: --echo-hidden is not supported by \sf statements  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> * Pavel Stehule (pavel.stehule@gmail.com) wrote:
>> I don't agree so it works well - you cannot use short type names is
>> significant issue
>
> This is for psql.  In what use-case do you see that being a serious
> limitation?
>
> I might support having psql be able to fall-back to checking if the
> function name is unique (or perhaps doing that first before going on to
> look at the function arguments) but I don't think this should all be
> punted to the backend where only 9.3+ would have any real support for a
> capability which already exists in other places and should be trivially
> added to these.

Since time is running short for discussion of 9.3:

I still think this patch is an improvement over the status quo, and is
committable as-is. Yes, the patch doesn't address the existing
ugliness with minimal_error_message() and sidestepping PSQLexec(), but
at least it fixes the --echo-hidden behavior, and the various other
issues may be handled separately.

Josh



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: Hold all commits!
Next
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: Re: Suggested new CF status: "Pending Discussion"