2016-09-28 21:59 GMT+02:00 Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com>:

> Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > I am sorry, I disagree. Proposed form is hard readable. Is not possible
> to
> > simply copy/paste.
> Why do you care?  You can use \sf if you want to copy&paste the
> function code.

I know so I can use \sf. But I don't see any sense to have less readable
output of any psql command.

> > I cannot to imagine any use case for proposed format.
> My vote (which was not counted by Stephen) was to remove it from \df+
> altogether.  I stand by that.  People who are used to seeing the output
> in \df+ will wonder "where the heck did it go" and eventually figure it
> out, at which point it's no longer a problem.  We're not breaking
> anyone's scripts, that's for sure.

I prefer removing before proposed solution with proposed format.

We are in cycle because prosrc field is used for two independent features -
and then it can be hard to find a agreement.

Name of function in dll is some different than PL function body. But it is
stored and displayed in one field - and it is impossible do it well.



> If we're not removing it, I +0 support the option of moving it to
> footers.  I'm -1 on doing nothing.
> --
> Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Reply via email to