2016-10-03 22:03 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>:

> Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> writes:
> > 2016-10-03 21:54 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>:
> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >>> Personally I'm on the edge of washing my hands of the whole thing...
>
> >> The hand-washing strategy has a lot to recommend it; this thread is
> >> going nowhere fast.  I don't care enough to put up a big stink about
> >> the idea of removing PL source code from \df+ output, but it's not
> >> what I'd choose to do; let's call me -0 on that option.
>
> > I can write the patch - I am sure so cleaned \df+ output will be better
> > than what we have now.
>
> Writing a patch is not the problem.  Getting consensus on what it should
> do is the problem.
>

I am feeling consensus on removing source of PL from \dt+. There is partial
consensus on saving this field (renamed) for C and internal language. I am
not sure about consensus about \sf enhancing.

First point is almost clean -- others not, but is not necessary do it now.
Who needs some special functionality, he can do direct query on pg_proc. It
is not mayor functionality - there is more than one possible substitution -
so cleaning without any other changes should be ok too.

Regards

Pavel



>
>                         regards, tom lane
>

Reply via email to