Marko Tiikkaja <ma...@joh.to> writes:
> On 1/16/14 4:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> FWIW, I'm on board with the idea of printing the oprcode, but adding
>> volatility here seems like probably a waste of valuable terminal width.
>> I think that the vast majority of operators have immutable or at worst
>> stable underlying functions, so this doesn't seem like the first bit
>> of information I'd need about the underlying function.
> Completely unscientifically, 50% of the time I've wanted to know the
> oprcode has been because I wanted to know its volatility (exactly
> because of the stable oprcodes we have). It seemed like a useful
> addition, but I don't feel that strongly about it.
Hm. Personally, I've lost count of the number of times I've had to
resort to "select ... from pg_operator" because \do lacked an oprcode
column, but I don't remember that many or indeed any were because
I wanted to check the volatility.
Anybody else have an opinion?
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
