* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
> > 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.
> It's sounding to me like we have consensus on this proposal to further
> change \df+ to replace the "Source code" column with "Internal name",
> which is prosrc for C and internal-language functions but NULL otherwise.
> If I've not heard objections by tomorrow I'll go make that change.
> Are we satisfied with telling people to use \sf to see the source code
> for a PL function?  Or should there be another variant of \df that
> still provides source code?

I don't see the point in having a \df variant be the same as what \sf
is.  I could possibly see extending \sf in some way, if there are things
that it doesn't currently do that \df does (and those things are



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to