On Jan 11, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Joel Jacobson <j...@gluefinance.com> wrote: > 2011/1/11 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: >> I don't get it. If two different items that exist in the system out >> of the box have the same description, it seems clear that relevant >> piece of disambiguating information exists nowhere in the description >> string. > > I guess it is a question of prioritization. > If backwards compatibility is to be guaranteed, even for functions > returning text intended to be read by humans, then the function cannot > be modified, without violating that golden rule, if such a rule exists > within the PostgreSQL development project? > > If it's not a golden rule, then it's a totally different story and > there is no excuse why it should return the same descriptions for the > same objects. > Any other reasoning is just silly.
Well, we shouldn't change them randomly or arbitrarily, but improving them is another thing altogether. I think the contention that any user or application anywhere is depending on the exact textual representation of a pg_amproc entry is exceedingly dubious. And I think the current messages are flat-out confusing. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
