On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 12:07 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi > > 2016-09-28 18:57 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > >> Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> writes: >> > 2016-09-28 16:03 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: >> >> I propose to push my current patch (ie, move PL function >> >> source code to \df+ footers), and we can use it in HEAD for awhile >> >> and see what we think. We can alway improve or revert it later. >> >> > I had some objection to format of source code - it should be full source >> > code, not just header and body. >> >> That would be redundant with stuff that's in the main part of the \df >> display. I really don't need to see the argument types twice, for >> instance. >> > > I am sorry, I disagree. Proposed form is hard readable. Is not possible to > simply copy/paste. > > I cannot to imagine any use case for proposed format. > > I just did testing on Tom's patch - which show pl source code as a footer (show-pl-source-code-as-a-footer.patch). I am sorry, but I agree with Paval, its is hard readable - and its not adding any simplification on what we have now. Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> writes: > We are in cycle because prosrc field is used for two independent features - > and then it can be hard to find a agreement. > I thought pretty much everyone was on board with the idea of keeping > prosrc in \df+ for internal/C-language functions (and then probably > renaming the column, since it isn't actually source code in that case). >The argument is over what to do for PL functions, which is only one use > case not two Thinking more, I am good for keeping prosrc in \df+ for internal/C-language functions (with changed column name). and then \sf will be used to get the source code for PL, SQL, language. Regards > > Pavel > > >> >> regards, tom lane >> > > -- Rushabh Lathia www.EnterpriseDB.com
