On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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.
I'm still not used to the change that I have to use \d+ rather than \d to see the view definition. It's the #1 thing I want to see when examining a view, and since 2fe1b4dd651917aad2accac7ba8adb44d9f54930 I have to remember to stick a + sign in there. So, in short, I agree. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers