* 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.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to