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
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
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
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
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
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
* 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
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,
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
* 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!
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 &
* 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
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
* 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
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
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
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
17 matches
Mail list logo