Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57FAC6350C3
	for <pgsql-admin-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Thu,  5 Mar 2009 14:45:25 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 46750-10 for
	<pgsql-admin-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Thu,  5 Mar 2009 14:45:23 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2464634AA5
	for <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>; Thu,  5 Mar 2009 14:45:20 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n25IjHOO008332;
	Thu, 5 Mar 2009 13:45:17 -0500 (EST)
To: Jan-Peter.Seifert@gmx.de
cc: raf <raf@raf.org>, pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: getting 'full' names of functions? 
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Jan-Peter.Seifert@gmx.de
	message dated "Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:41:49 +0100"
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:45:17 -0500
Message-ID: <8331.1236278717@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200903/78
X-Sequence-Number: 31578

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