Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Khee Chin escribió:
>> Updated with an additional line in the comments for get_indexdef
>>
>> * if colno == -999, we only want the name of the variables that
>> make up the index
> I don't think this hack is going to fly.
Yeah ... if it were local in describe.c that would be one thing, but
putting such a kluge in a public function API is pretty icky.
I think the proposed patch is doing pretty much the wrong thing anyhow.
As I understood it, the request was *not* to add a column to \di (which
would likely make it too wide to be readable, and would look rather
silly in a mixed-indexes-and-tables listing too). The idea was to add
a column to \d for an index, ie given something like
CREATE INDEX fooi ON foo (f1, (f2+f3))
then "\d fooi" would give
Index "public.fooi"
Column | Type | Definition
-----------------+---------+------------
f1 | integer | f1
pg_expression_2 | integer | (f2+f3)
which you could do straight off with the existing behavior of
pg_get_indexdef().
BTW, if we're going to have a different columnset for \d on indexes,
it seems like it would be a good idea to include the opclass name too,
at least in \d+.
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
