On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> but adding
> volatility here seems like probably a waste of valuable terminal width.
> I think that the vast majority of operators have immutable or at worst
> stable underlying functions, so this doesn't seem like the first bit
> of information I
On 1/16/14, 9:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Given the lack of other votes, I pushed this without a volatility column,
and with some other changes --- mostly, I kept the Description column
last, because that's how all the other \d commands do it.
Thanks! And looks like I missed the documentation as we
I wrote:
> Anybody else have an opinion?
Given the lack of other votes, I pushed this without a volatility column,
and with some other changes --- mostly, I kept the Description column
last, because that's how all the other \d commands do it.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent v
Marko Tiikkaja writes:
> On 1/16/14 4:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> FWIW, I'm on board with the idea of printing the oprcode, but adding
>> volatility here seems like probably a waste of valuable terminal width.
>> I think that the vast majority of operators have immutable or at worst
>> stable underl
On 1/16/14 4:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Marko Tiikkaja writes:
On 1/16/14 9:53 AM, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
Even I personally felt the Function and Volatility is nice to have info
into \do+.
FWIW, I'm on board with the idea of printing the oprcode, but adding
volatility here seems like probably a w
Marko Tiikkaja writes:
> On 1/16/14 9:53 AM, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
>> Even I personally felt the Function and Volatility is nice to have info
>> into \do+.
FWIW, I'm on board with the idea of printing the oprcode, but adding
volatility here seems like probably a waste of valuable terminal width.
On 1/16/14 9:53 AM, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
I have reviewed you patch.
-- Patch got applied cleanly (using patch -p1)
-- Make & Make install works fine
-- make check looks good
I done code-walk and it looks good. Also did some manual testing and haven't
found any issue with the implementation.
E
Hi,
I have reviewed you patch.
-- Patch got applied cleanly (using patch -p1)
-- Make & Make install works fine
-- make check looks good
I done code-walk and it looks good. Also did some manual testing and haven't
found any issue with the implementation.
Even I personally felt the Function and
