At 2008-07-15 20:28:39 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I doubt we'd consider accepting a patch done this way. > > Yes, it's much too ugly to live.
Though I must say it would have been even MORE horrible to copy all this code into the backend to make pg_get_functiondef(), notwithstanding the extra utility of a generally-callable function. But what I'm wondering, since Gavin said he once had a working version of this patch (i.e. \ef) which he somehow lost, is how he approached the problem at the time. Gavin? Do you remember? Was it horrible? -- ams -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
