On Jan 11, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Joel Jacobson <joel@gluefinance.com> wrote:
> 2011/1/11 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
>> I don't get it. If two different items that exist in the system out
>> of the box have the same description, it seems clear that relevant
>> piece of disambiguating information exists nowhere in the description
>> string.
>
> I guess it is a question of prioritization.
> If backwards compatibility is to be guaranteed, even for functions
> returning text intended to be read by humans, then the function cannot
> be modified, without violating that golden rule, if such a rule exists
> within the PostgreSQL development project?
>
> If it's not a golden rule, then it's a totally different story and
> there is no excuse why it should return the same descriptions for the
> same objects.
> Any other reasoning is just silly.
Well, we shouldn't change them randomly or arbitrarily, but improving them is another thing altogether. I think the
contentionthat any user or application anywhere is depending on the exact textual representation of a pg_amproc entry
isexceedingly dubious. And I think the current messages are flat-out confusing.
...Robert
