Re: [PATCH] "\ef " in psql - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Asko Oja
Subject Re: [PATCH] "\ef " in psql
Date
Msg-id ecd779860807290356i56a998d4ne897d537eaf13073@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] "\ef " in psql  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] "\ef " in psql  ("Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Not so sure about omitting OR REPLACE. In my experience it is more often needed than not. Main argument for omitting might be to protect hackers from carelesse users :)

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 5:50 PM, 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.

                       regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Stephen R. van den Berg"
Date:
Subject: Relicensed and downloadable (Re: Protocol 3, Execute, maxrows to return, impact?)
Next
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: [WIP] patch - Collation at database level