On Friday 27 May 2005 20:45, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 04:16:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> There seems to be a distinct lack of unanimity about that judgment ;-)
> >
> > Well, yes, _across Postgres hackers_.  But if we were to ask
> > pgsql-general I have a feeling we would measure more weight on one side.
> Yeah, but which side ;-) ?  I think the pg-general population would have
> a very much higher fraction of people who have no user-defined functions
> and therefore would see no value in \df not showing system functions.

Given that a good majority of the system functions aren't even documented, I 
think you'd find it more likely people would sway toward not having the few 
functions they have written not be totally hidden within the vast list of 
system functions that a majority of people will never make use of.  As a 
point of reference, both pgadmin and phppgadmin default to the "hide system 
functions" method and I haven't seen too many complaints.

> If we put in a config variable, that at least lowers the stakes for the
> losing side in the argument about what the default should be.  Without
> that, I think there will be some serious flamewars ahead...

I'm not against the idea of a config variable, but this is what, the third or 
fourth go around on this?  It seems rather unfair to put this burden upon the 
current patch writer at this stage of the game....  if someone wants to code 
the config option let them, put it shouldn't be a barrier to having the 
current patch be applied.  

Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to