On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 2:16 AM Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 1/2/24 01:00, jian he wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 5:11 PM John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 12:22 AM Alexander Korotkov
> >> <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> The one thing triggering my perfectionism is that the patch does two
> >>> syscache lookups instead of one.
> >>
> >> For an admin function used interactively, I'm not sure why that
> >> matters? Or do you see another use case?
> >
> > I did a minor refactor based on v1-0001.
> > I think pg_basetype should stay at "9.26.4. System Catalog Information
> > Functions".
> > So I placed it before pg_char_to_encoding.
> > Now functions listed on "Table 9.73. System Catalog Information
> > Functions" will look like alphabetical ordering.
> > I slightly changed the src/include/catalog/pg_proc.dat.
> > now it looks like very similar to pg_typeof
> >
> > src6=# \df pg_typeof
> > List of functions
> > Schema | Name | Result data type | Argument data types | Type
> > ------------+-----------+------------------+---------------------+------
> > pg_catalog | pg_typeof | regtype | "any" | func
> > (1 row)
> >
> > src6=# \df pg_basetype
> > List of functions
> > Schema | Name | Result data type | Argument data types | Type
> > ------------+-------------+------------------+---------------------+------
> > pg_catalog | pg_basetype | regtype | "any" | func
> > (1 row)
> >
> > v2-0001 is as is in the first email thread, 0002 is my changes based on v2-0001.
>
>
> I think the patch(es) look reasonable, so just a couple minor comments.
>
> 1) We already have pg_typeof() function, so maybe we should use a
> similar naming convention pg_basetypeof()?
>
I am ok with pg_basetypeof.