Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Not really. AFAIR, there are two cases that exist in practice,
>> depending on which AM you're talking about:
>>
>> 1. The recorded types match the input types of the operator/function
>> (btree & hash).
>> 2. The recorded types are always the same as the opclass's input type
>> (gist & gin).
>>
>> In neither case does printing those types really add much information.
>> That's why it's not there now.
> 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.
The "relevant piece of disambiguating information" is the function
name+parameters in the first case, or the opclass name in the second.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
