| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_settings view |
| Date: | 2002-08-11 01:21:39 |
| Message-ID: | 27912.1029028899@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> For a similar reason I was thinking that only the system view should be
> documented, not the function. Is that the right thing to do?
Probably so. Given the notational inconvenience of having to specify
the RECORD output type, I can't see much reason why people would want
to call the function directly, as opposed to selecting from the view.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-11 05:09:17 | Re: stand-alone composite types patch (was [HACKERS] Proposal: |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2002-08-11 01:14:07 | Re: pg_settings view |