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. >
Advertising
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 >
