David Fetter wrote: > On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 03:12:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> 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. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
