* 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 useful). Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature