* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 10/11/16 7:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > 1. Do nothing. > > 2. Remove the prosrc column from \df+ altogether. > > 3. Suppress prosrc for PL functions, but continue to show it for > > C and internal functions (and, probably, rename it to something > > other than "Source code" in that case). > > 4. #3 plus show PL function source code in footers. > > One related annoyance I have with psql is that \d+ on a view *does* show > the "source code" in the footer, because it's often too long and bulky > and ugly and unrelated to why I wanted to use the +.
I tend to agree with that, though I believe it's a topic for another thread. > I'm OK with just removing all the source codes from the \d family and > using the \s family instead. Ok, great, thanks for clarifying that. Since we only have '\sf' today, I think the prevailing option here is then to make the change to removing 'prosrc' from \df+, have an 'internal name' column, and have users use \sf for functions. If anyone feels differently, please speak up. Personally, I like the idea of a '\sv' for views, though we should discuss that on a new thread. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
