Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 10/12/16 11:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm not sure that Peter was voting for retaining "internal name", but >> personally I prefer that to deleting prosrc entirely, so +1. > > I'm not sure what the point of showing the internal name would be if we > have already declared that the source code of non-C functions is not > that interesting. But I don't have a strong feeling about it. There is still an open CommitFest entry for this patch, which is marked "Ready for Committer", but it looks to me like there's no consensus position here. Different people have different preferences, and every option that is somebody's first preference seems to be somebody else's last preference. So I suggest that we give this one up for a lost cause and mark it Rejected. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?
Robert Haas writes: > There is still an open CommitFest entry for this patch, which is > marked "Ready for Committer", but it looks to me like there's no > consensus position here. Different people have different preferences, > and every option that is somebody's first preference seems to be > somebody else's last preference. So I suggest that we give this one > up for a lost cause and mark it Rejected. Yeah, that's about where I'm at on it too. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> There is still an open CommitFest entry for this patch, which is >> marked "Ready for Committer", but it looks to me like there's no >> consensus position here. Different people have different preferences, >> and every option that is somebody's first preference seems to be >> somebody else's last preference. So I suggest that we give this one >> up for a lost cause and mark it Rejected. > > Yeah, that's about where I'm at on it too. Done. We can reopen this if a vigorous consensus emerges. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?
2016-10-12 19:48 GMT+02:00 Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com>: > On 10/12/16 11:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > I'm not sure that Peter was voting for retaining "internal name", but > > personally I prefer that to deleting prosrc entirely, so +1. > > I'm not sure what the point of showing the internal name would be if we > have already declared that the source code of non-C functions is not > that interesting. But I don't have a strong feeling about it. > The benefit is for people who have to look on C implementation of internal functions. Probably not too big group - but it can be interesting for beginners who starting with reading of PostgreSQL code. Regards Pavel > > -- > Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ > PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services >
Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?
On 10/12/16 11:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm not sure that Peter was voting for retaining "internal name", but > personally I prefer that to deleting prosrc entirely, so +1. I'm not sure what the point of showing the internal name would be if we have already declared that the source code of non-C functions is not that interesting. But I don't have a strong feeling about it. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?
Stephen Frost writes: > * 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+. I'm unimpressed with the "I can retrain" argument, because that only applies to people who exclusively use the latest and greatest. \sv didn't exist before 9.6, so if I relearn to use that, it'll fail on me anytime I'm using a pre-9.6 psql, which is going to be a significant percentage of the time for awhile to come. Some quick digging says that \d on a view included the view definition in a footer since the very beginning (7.0 era, see commit a45195a19) and we changed it in 9.0 to require +. That's a heck of a lot of history and fingertip knowledge to override on the strength of one man's complaint, even if he is the man who made it that way in the first place. I also note that getting into the habit of using "\d+" to see view definitions didn't create any major problems when using older psqls. (BTW, \sf has been there since 9.1, which means that equating the compatibility situations for views and functions is a fallacy.) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost 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 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Stephen Frost 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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?
Stephen Frost 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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 10/12/16 11:08 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Personally, I like the idea of a '\sv' for views, though we should > > discuss that on a new thread. > > \sv already exists. :-) Whoops, sorry, was looking at a 9.5 psql. :) Neat! Thanks! Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?
On 10/12/16 11:08 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Personally, I like the idea of a '\sv' for views, though we should > discuss that on a new thread. \sv already exists. :-) -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?
* 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
Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?
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'm OK with just removing all the source codes from the \d family and using the \s family instead. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost writes: > > As was mentioned, this thread doesn't really need a patch but rather > > some comment from those who have voiced a -1 on removing the PL source > > code column. > > > In another, perhaps vain, attempt to get to a consensus, here's what it > > looks like the current standings are for "Remove source from \df+", > > I think this is oversimplified, because there are multiple proposals on > the table, and it's not entirely clear to me who approves of which. That's certainly fair and I had begun that email by trying to come up with a way to represent everyone's positions fairly but, frankly, after an hour of reading through the thread and noting the various changes in positions, I got to the point where I felt... > > There have been a number of voices asking that we do *something* here. > > Yes. I agree with your summary that Peter is the only one who appears > to be in favor of "do nothing" (and even there, his complaint was at > least partly procedural not substantive). We really need a response on this part if we're going to actually make any progress. If we'd actually like to do a formal condorcet-style vote (or something similar which allows preferences to be considered) over the various options, I'm willing to put effort into making it happen, but only if we'd actually agree to accept the result, otherwise we're just back here again. Thanks! Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?
2016-10-12 1:51 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane : > Stephen Frost writes: > > As was mentioned, this thread doesn't really need a patch but rather > > some comment from those who have voiced a -1 on removing the PL source > > code column. > > > In another, perhaps vain, attempt to get to a consensus, here's what it > > looks like the current standings are for "Remove source from \df+", > > I think this is oversimplified, because there are multiple proposals on > the table, and it's not entirely clear to me who approves of which. > We have at least the following options: > > 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. > > Personally I like #4 better than #3 better than #2 better than #1, > but the only one I'm really against is "do nothing". > My preferences: #2, #1 - I dislike #4 more than #1 - I don't see any benefit there Regards Pavel > > > There have been a number of voices asking that we do *something* here. > > Yes. I agree with your summary that Peter is the only one who appears > to be in favor of "do nothing" (and even there, his complaint was at > least partly procedural not substantive). > > regards, tom lane >
Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?
Stephen Frost writes: > As was mentioned, this thread doesn't really need a patch but rather > some comment from those who have voiced a -1 on removing the PL source > code column. > In another, perhaps vain, attempt to get to a consensus, here's what it > looks like the current standings are for "Remove source from \df+", I think this is oversimplified, because there are multiple proposals on the table, and it's not entirely clear to me who approves of which. We have at least the following options: 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. Personally I like #4 better than #3 better than #2 better than #1, but the only one I'm really against is "do nothing". > There have been a number of voices asking that we do *something* here. Yes. I agree with your summary that Peter is the only one who appears to be in favor of "do nothing" (and even there, his complaint was at least partly procedural not substantive). regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?
All, Starting a new thread with an accurate name to see if we can't get somewhere with this topic. * Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote: > 2016-10-08 23:46 GMT+02:00 Jim Nasby : > > On 10/3/16 3:18 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> I am feeling consensus on removing source of PL from \dt+. There is > >> partial consensus on saving this field (renamed) for C and internal > >> language. I am not sure about consensus about \sf enhancing. > > > > FWIW, I'm completely in favor of ditching PL source code. I'm neutral on C > > and internal. > > here is a patch As was mentioned, this thread doesn't really need a patch but rather some comment from those who have voiced a -1 on removing the PL source code column. In another, perhaps vain, attempt to get to a consensus, here's what it looks like the current standings are for "Remove source from \df+", to me: Peter:-1 Robert: -0 Michael: +0 Alvaro: +1 Jim: +1 Pavel:+1 Rushabh: +1 Stephen: +1 Tom: +1 There have been a number of voices asking that we do *something* here. In short, I believe Robert's willing to concede to the majority (see: CA+TgmoaPCBUGF7yTcjmiU=m2sgo8jantnkhmtm1xkoar5uq...@mail.gmail.com), but we have yet to hear if Peter's stance has changed on this since his July posts (see: f16571cc-bf6f-53a1-6809-f09f48f0a...@2ndquadrant.com) and that's a remaining full -1 vote. Apologies if I got this wrong or mis-represented anyone, just trying to drive towards a consensus on this, so we can move on. Please speak up if you feel this was an incorrect assessment of your position. Full original thread is here: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAB7nPqTR3Vu3xKOZOYqSm-%2BbSZV0kqgeGAXD6w5GLbkbfd5Q6w%40mail.gmail.com Thanks! Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
