Stephen Frost <> writes:
> * Tom Lane ( 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

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

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to