Re: Bug in pg_describe_object, patch v2

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> So I guess I'm coming around to the idea that we want something not too
>> much bigger than Andreas' original patch, but applying to both amop and
>> amproc, and putting the operator/function description at the end.

> That's fine with me.

OK, committed that way.

> I think the principal argument for failing to
> remove it entirely is that we've traditionally had it there, but IMHO
> moving in the direction of treating them as separate objects is much
> more clear and an altogether better approach.

I think there's a usability argument in addition to just plain "we
always did it that way".  But anyway, this patch has now officially
been discussed to death.
        regards, tom lane