On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 03:34:31PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > David Fetter wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 03:12:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Josh Berkus <[email protected]> writes: > > > > Tom, It fits into 80 columns if you don't have any functions with > > > > 11 parameters. ;-) > > > > > > Well, yeah, but in typical cases I think it fits. A look at the > > > current regression database shows all but 6 of 117 functions > > > fitting. With another ten characters eaten by a new column, a lot > > > more of them would wrap. > > > > > > > Actually, I'm thinking the new column ought to be called "type". > > > > > > Yes, that's what I had in mind too. > > > > Excellent idea. I just plain don't believe that there's anything > > process-critical and automated that depends on \da, although we could > > have it rewritten as an alias for convenience. > > I assume the 'type' column will identify triggers, i/o functions > (cstring), window functions, and maybe aggregates too; this solves > several problems at once.
Lemme whip up a patch :) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <[email protected]> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: [email protected] Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
