Re: pg_dump sort order for functions
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_dump sort order for functions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1263306929.14170.21.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_dump sort order for functions (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_dump sort order for functions
Re: pg_dump sort order for functions |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On mån, 2010-01-11 at 12:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > > On mån, 2010-01-11 at 10:44 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I think you could probably use the existing tag field; no need for a new > >> one. > > > Sorry, which tag field are you referring to? > > The one called "tag" in the source code. It prints out as "Name": > > -- > -- Name: binary_coercible(oid, oid); Type: FUNCTION; Schema: public; Owner: postgres > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > -- Um, that tag is the "name", and if you change that, the name in CREATE FUNCTION also changes. I was initially thinking in that direction, but it seems it won't be feasible without significant refactoring. In the mean time, hacking it into the sort function itself as a special case works out fine, per attached patch. One might frown upon such an exception, but then again, function overloading is an exception to the one-name-per-object rule all over the place anyway. ;-)
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: