* 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.
Apologies, didn't mean to say that he had agree with keeping 'internal name', just that it seemed to be the most generally accepted apporach (and it has a +1 from me as well). > > Personally, I like the idea of a '\sv' for views, though we should > > discuss that on a new thread. > > We have \sv already no? Right, sorry. > 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. * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > 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. I definitely see the argument of "\d on a view used to give me the view def and now it's almost useless and I have to remember to \d+ all the time", but I also think that I might be able to retrain my fingers to do \sv for views more easily than always remembering to add a '+' to \d, which I use much more frequently than \sv or \d+. Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature