* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> 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.

Right, I understood that to be your question and was intending to answer
it with "no."

> 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.

Agreed on both counts.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to