From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jan-Peter.Seifert@gmx.de
Cc: raf <raf@raf.org>
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: getting 'full' names of functions?
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:45:17 -0500
Message-ID: <8331.1236278717@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090305164149.228110@gmx.net>
References: <20090302122020.137490@gmx.net>
<49ABE46D.3000501@synechron.com>
<5521.1236006477@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20090304144122.153400@gmx.net>
<20090305003259.GA24998@raf.org>
<20090305164149.228110@gmx.net>
Jan-Peter.Seifert@gmx.de writes:
> Hello raf,
>>> Easier is just
>>> select oid::regprocedure from pg_proc where <whatever>
>> note that this method doesn't produce a complete function
>> signature. the precision and scale of numerics are not
>> included in the output. hopefully, that won't matter for
>> your needs.
> Oh. So functions expecting e.g. numeric(5,2) as argument wouldn't be
listed correctly? Is this going to be fixed then?
No, because it's not broken. Precision/scale of numerics aren't
relevant to function signatures. A function can take or return
a numeric, full stop --- it doesn't matter what the precision is.
The same goes for other type modifiers such as varchar maxlength.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, Jan-Peter.Seifert@gmx.de, raf@raf.org
Subject: Re: getting 'full' names of functions?
In-Reply-To: <8331.1236278717@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox