* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 7/12/16 12:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > 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'm quite fond of having the full source code show in \df+ and
I'm curious how it's useful and in what way \sf does not accomplish what you use \df+ for. I understand that's a change, but I believe it's a positive one and would make \df+ much more generally useful. I tend to resort to selecting columns out of pg_proc more often than I use \df+, which is certainly not what we're going for. > I'm > against removing it on short notice past beta2 We've already had to change the structure of \df+; I'm not convinced that avoiding doing so further now, just to do so again in the next release, is actually a better answer than changing it now. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
