Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> 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. I'm not sure that Peter was voting for retaining "internal name", but personally I prefer that to deleting prosrc entirely, so +1. > Personally, I like the idea of a '\sv' for views, though we should > discuss that on a new thread. We have \sv already no? I'm kind of -1 on removing view definitions from \d+. It's worked like that for a very long time and Peter's is the first complaint I've heard. I think changing it is likely to annoy more people than will think it's an improvement. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers