On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 12:07 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com>

> 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

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.

> Pavel
>>                         regards, tom lane

Rushabh Lathia

Reply via email to