* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> (Of course, if we were to get rid of "Source code", the point > >> would be moot ...) > > > I still think that having source code is useful for debugging, so I > > left it out. Note for the committer who will perhaps pick up this > > patch: I left out "Source Code", but feel free to remove it if you > > think the contrary. It is easier to remove code than adding it back. > > I still think removing it would make \df+ output substantially more > readable whenever any PLs are involved. I'm tempted to propose adding > something like \df++ to include the source code for those who really > want that. > > However, by my count the vote is two in favor of removing it versus two > against, which is certainly not any kind of consensus, so nothing is going > to happen on that front right away. Meanwhile, we definitely need to get > the "Parallel" column into 9.6, so I'll review and push the rest of the > changes.
Advertising
I agree with removing the source code field, though I did like the suggestion mentioned elsewhere for having it shown when it's just a C symbol but not otherwise. If we can find a way to have the C symbol shown when it's a C or internal function, I'm fine with that, but the source code field having entier pl/sql and pl/pgsql functions in it doesn't work and \sf should be used instead. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
