Обсуждение: getting function argument names from psql?
Is there a way to get the names of the arguments to a function from psql? /df and /df+ return the parameter types, but not their names. Thanks, Tim
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 07:33:09AM -0700, Timothy Perrigo wrote: > Is there a way to get the names of the arguments to a function from > psql? /df and /df+ return the parameter types, but not their names. One way would be to look at pg_proc.proargnames. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/catalog-pg-proc.html -- Michael Fuhr
On 7/12/06, Timothy Perrigo <tperrigo@wernervas.com> wrote: > Is there a way to get the names of the arguments to a function from > psql? /df and /df+ return the parameter types, but not their names. select oid::regprocedure from pg_proc where proname like 'your name here'; merlin
"Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
> On 7/12/06, Timothy Perrigo <tperrigo@wernervas.com> wrote:
>> Is there a way to get the names of the arguments to a function from
>> psql? /df and /df+ return the parameter types, but not their names.
> select oid::regprocedure from pg_proc where proname like 'your name here';
Nope, because regprocedureout doesn't include argument names (nor modes).
I think the best way ATM is to look directly at pg_proc.proargnames :-(
regards, tom lane
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 11:37:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes: > > On 7/12/06, Timothy Perrigo <tperrigo@wernervas.com> wrote: > >> Is there a way to get the names of the arguments to a function > >> from psql? /df and /df+ return the parameter types, but not > >> their names. > > > select oid::regprocedure from pg_proc where proname like 'your > > name here'; > > Nope, because regprocedureout doesn't include argument names (nor > modes). I think the best way ATM is to look directly at > pg_proc.proargnames :-( Back when, I submitted a psql patch to get the input names along with their types. Shall I dig up that code this weekend? Cheers, D -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote!
On 7/13/06, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 11:37:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > select oid::regprocedure from pg_proc where proname like 'your > > > name here'; > > > > Nope, because regprocedureout doesn't include argument names (nor > > modes). I think the best way ATM is to look directly at > > pg_proc.proargnames :-( whoop! misread it :) > Back when, I submitted a psql patch to get the input names along with > their types. Shall I dig up that code this weekend? that would be great, although is there any concern about backwards compatibility of regprocedure cast? would it be safer to make a new cast? also, does your patch account for in/out? merlin
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 09:22:56AM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote: > On 7/13/06, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote: > >On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 11:37:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >Back when, I submitted a psql patch to get the input names along > >with their types. Shall I dig up that code this weekend? > > that would be great, although is there any concern about backwards > compatibility of regprocedure cast? I'm not really concerned with any backwards compatibility for this new feature, as psql has never attempted it for backslash commands. > would it be safer to make a new cast? also, does your patch account > for in/out? If it didn't, it will. :) Cheers, D -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote!
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 03:39:34PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 13. Juli 2006 15:16 schrieb David Fetter: > > Back when, I submitted a psql patch to get the input names along > > with their types. Shall I dig up that code this weekend? > > Seems reasonable, as long as it doesn't make the output an extra > three screens wide. I can't guarantee that people haven't given their input parameters names like supercalifragilisticexpialidocious_input_01. I could try something that would wrap in such cases, but that's a lot more code. Should I try something that wraps? Cheers, D -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote!
Am Donnerstag, 13. Juli 2006 15:16 schrieb David Fetter: > Back when, I submitted a psql patch to get the input names along with > their types. Shall I dig up that code this weekend? Seems reasonable, as long as it doesn't make the output an extra three screens wide. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/