On 7/23/08, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@oryx.com> writes:
> > At 2008-07-17 18:28:19 -0400, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
> >> It wouldn't take a whole lot to convince me that a pg_get_functiondef
> >> would be useful, although I don't foresee either of those applications
> >> wanting to use it because of their backward-compatibility constraints.
>
> > What would the function return? "CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION ..."? Would
> > that be good enough for everyone who might want to call it?
>
> I think I'd go with CREATE FUNCTION for simplicity. It would be easy
> enough for something like \ef to splice in OR REPLACE before shipping
> the command back to the server.
Please make it use full qualified names (schema.name) for both
function name and result types. Current search_path juggling
the pg_dump does is major PITA.
--
marko
