Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?

2016-11-08 Thread Robert Haas
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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?

2016-11-08 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?

2016-11-08 Thread Robert Haas
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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?

2016-10-12 Thread Pavel Stehule
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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?

2016-10-12 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?

2016-10-12 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?

2016-10-12 Thread Stephen Frost
* 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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?

2016-10-12 Thread Robert Haas
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,

Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?

2016-10-12 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?

2016-10-12 Thread Stephen Frost
* 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!

Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?

2016-10-12 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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 &

Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?

2016-10-12 Thread Stephen Frost
* 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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?

2016-10-12 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?

2016-10-12 Thread Stephen Frost
* 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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?

2016-10-11 Thread Pavel Stehule
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

Re: [HACKERS] Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?

2016-10-11 Thread 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