2016-07-08 20:39 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>:

> Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > As a separate concern, IMO having the source code in a \df+ column is
> > almost completely useless.
> Good point.  It works okay for C/internal functions, but in those cases
> it's usually redundant with the proname.  For PL functions it's a disaster
> formatting-wise, because they're often wide and/or multi-line.
> > I propose to split that out to a separate
> > \df command (say \df% or \df/) that shows *only* the source code.
> As to those names, ick.  Also, what do you envision the output looking
> like when multiple functions are selected?  Or would you ban wildcards?
> If you do, it's not clear what this does that \sf doesn't do better.
> Maybe, given the existence of \sf, we should just drop prosrc from \df+
> altogether.

prosrc has still benefit for me (for C hacking). Can we show data there
only for internal or C functions? I agree, it useless for PLpgSQL.


>                         regards, tom lane
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to