Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> 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).
I certainly agree that \sf already does what it does just fine. The
question is more about whether anyone is likely to think that removing
source code from \df+ output constitutes an important loss of
functionality.
I had some vague ideas about inventing a new \df behavior modeled on
the way that \d+ shows view definitions, that is, put the function body
in a footer rather than in the tabular output proper. So you could
imagine something like
# \df++ foo*
Schema | Name | ...
--------+------+-...
public | fooa | ...
public | foob | ...
Source code for fooa(int, text):
... body of fooa ...
Source code for foob(text, text, numeric):
... body of foob ...
But I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. And anyway we could add this
later.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
