I agree with the argument in this thread, having "Source code" as part of \df+ is bit annoying, specifically when output involve some really big PL language functions. Having is separate does make \df+ output more readable. So I would vote for \df++ rather then adding the source code as part of footer for \df+.
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> wrote: > Hi > > 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 >> following >> >> design? >> >> 1. move out source code of PL functions from \df+ >> >> 2. allow not unique filter in \sf and allow to display multiple >> functions >> >> > 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 > > Pavel > > >> >> regards, tom lane >> > > -- Rushabh Lathia