* 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+.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to