* 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. Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature