* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes:
> > On Friday, July 8, 2016, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Fujii-san has reminded me of the fact that we do not show in \df+ the
> >> parallel status of a function. The output of \df+ is already very
> >> large, so I guess that any people mentally sane already use it with
> >> the expanded display mode, and it may not matter adding more
> >> information.
> >> Thoughts about adding this piece of information?
> > Seems like a good idea to me. It's going to be useful in debugging
> If we're going to change \df+ at all, could I lobby for putting the Owner
> column next to Security?  They're logically related, and not related to
> Volatility which somehow got crammed between.  So I'm imagining the column
> order as
> Schema   | Name | Result data type | Argument data types |  Type  | Security 
> | Owner | Volatility | Parallel | Language | Source code | Description 
> Or maybe Owner then Security.

I've always wondered why there isn't any way to see the ACL for the
function through \d commands.  I'd suggest including that in \df+ also.
Note that \dn+, \dL+ and \db+, for example, include access privs for
those object types.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to