* 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.

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.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to