* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >> So prosrc for internal/C and NULL for others?  WFM.
> > And so we'd remove "Language" at the same time? That does not sound bad to 
> > me.
> Hm, I wasn't thinking of that step.  The main knock on "Source code" is
> that it is usually too large to fit into the display grid --- but that
> argument doesn't work against "Language".  Also, while "Language" is
> certainly an implementation detail in some sense, it is a pretty useful
> detail: it gives you a good hint about the likely speed of the function,
> for instance.

Agreed.  I don't have any issue with "Language", really, but I agree
that "Source code" makes the output pretty ridiculous.  I also liked the
idea of changing the name to "internal name" or something along those
lines, rather than having it be "source code", if we keep the column for
C/internal functions.  Keeping is as "source code" wouldn't be accurate.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to