I agree with the argument in this thread, having "Source code" as part of
is bit annoying, specifically when output involve some really big PL
functions. Having is separate does make \df+ output more readable. So I
vote for \df++ rather then adding the source code as part of footer for
Personally I didn't like idea for keeping "source code" for C/internal
functions as part of \df+ and moving others out of it. If we really want to
move "source code" from \df+, then it should be consistent - irrespective
of language. So may be remove "source code" completely from \df+ and add
\df++ support for the "source code".
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 12:14 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com>
> 2016-09-06 0:05 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
>> I wrote:
>> > Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >> Using footer for this purpose is little bit strange. What about
>> >> design?
>> >> 1. move out source code of PL functions from \df+
>> >> 2. allow not unique filter in \sf and allow to display multiple
>> > Wasn't that proposed and rejected upthread?
>> So ... why did you put this patch in "Waiting on Author" state? AFAIK,
>> we had dropped the idea of relying on \sf for this, mainly because
>> Peter complained about \df+ no longer providing source code. I follow
>> his point: if you're used to using \df+ to see source code, you probably
>> can figure it out quickly if that command shows the source in a different
>> place than before. But if it doesn't show it at all, using \sf instead
>> might not occur to you right away.
> I see only one situation, when I want to see more then one source code -
> checking overloaded functions. I prefer to see complete source code - in
> \sf format. But I don't remember, when I did it last time. So I can live
> without it well.
> I am thinking, there is strong agreement about reduction \dt+ result. I am
> not sure about usability of showing source code in footer. It is not too
> much readable - and the fact, so function's body is displayed not as CREATE
> statements, does the result less readable.
> Now I am thinking so using footer for this purpose is not too great idea -
> maybe we can live better without it (without source code of PL in \dt+
> result, I would to see only C function source there). If you like using
> footer, then the format should be changed to be more consistent, readable?
> I am not sure, how it can be enhanced.
>> regards, tom lane