On 7/23/08, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Abhijit Menon-Sen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > At 2008-07-17 18:28:19 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> It wouldn't take a whole lot to convince me that a pg_get_functiondef > >> would be useful, although I don't foresee either of those applications > >> wanting to use it because of their backward-compatibility constraints. > > > What would the function return? "CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION ..."? Would > > that be good enough for everyone who might want to call it? > > I think I'd go with CREATE FUNCTION for simplicity. It would be easy > enough for something like \ef to splice in OR REPLACE before shipping > the command back to the server.
Please make it use full qualified names (schema.name) for both function name and result types. Current search_path juggling the pg_dump does is major PITA. -- marko -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
