On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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.
For a data point, just today I wanted to look up the volatility of pg_trgm operators, which made me remember this patch. The \do+ output is narrow enough, I think an extra volatility column wouldn't be too bad. But even just having the function name is a huge improvement, at least that allows looking up volatility using \commands without accessing pg_operator directly. Regards, Marti -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers