On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

So to sum up:
- Add "Parallel" column
- Add ACLs
- Reordering the columns, I'd suggest as follows):
-- Schema
-- Name
-- Result data type
-- Argument data types
-- Type
-- Language
-- Volatility
-- Parallel
-- Owner
-- Security
-- ACL
-- Source code
-- Description
Or by thema, 1) General info, 2) specificity (volatility, parallel,
type), 3) Ownership.
And regarding "source code", I think that's useful for debugging.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to