Hi
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
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
2016-10-03 22:03 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane :
> Pavel Stehule writes:
> > 2016-10-03 21:54 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas :
> >> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Personally I'm on the edge of washing my
Pavel Stehule writes:
> 2016-10-03 21:54 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas :
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Personally I'm on the edge of washing my hands of the whole thing...
>> The hand-washing strategy has a
2016-10-03 21:54 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas :
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Well, alternatively, can we get a consensus for doing that? People
> > did speak against removing PL source code from \df+ altogether, but
> > maybe they're
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, alternatively, can we get a consensus for doing that? People
> did speak against removing PL source code from \df+ altogether, but
> maybe they're willing to reconsider if the alternative is doing nothing.
>
>
On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Let's remove it and move on then. By looking again at this thread and
> particularly
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160926190618.gh5...@tamriel.snowman.net
> (thanks Stephen for the summary) that's
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Nasby writes:
>> On 9/28/16 2:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> My vote (which was not counted by Stephen) was to remove it from \df+
>>> altogether. I stand by that. People who are used to
Jim Nasby writes:
> On 9/28/16 2:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> My vote (which was not counted by Stephen) was to remove it from \df+
>> altogether. I stand by that. People who are used to seeing the output
>> in \df+ will wonder "where the heck did it go" and
On 9/28/16 2:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I am sorry, I disagree. Proposed form is hard readable. Is not possible to
> simply copy/paste.
Why do you care? You can use \sf if you want to copy the
function code.
> I cannot to imagine any use case for proposed format.
My vote (which was not
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 12:07 AM, Pavel Stehule
wrote:
> Hi
>
> 2016-09-28 18:57 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane :
>
>> Pavel Stehule writes:
>> > 2016-09-28 16:03 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane :
>> >> I propose to push my
Pavel Stehule writes:
> We are in cycle because prosrc field is used for two independent features -
> and then it can be hard to find a agreement.
I thought pretty much everyone was on board with the idea of keeping
prosrc in \df+ for internal/C-language functions (and
2016-09-28 21:59 GMT+02:00 Alvaro Herrera :
> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> > I am sorry, I disagree. Proposed form is hard readable. Is not possible
> to
> > simply copy/paste.
>
> Why do you care? You can use \sf if you want to copy the
> function code.
>
I know so I can
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > I cannot to imagine any use case for proposed format.
>
> My vote (which was not counted by Stephen) was to remove it from \df+
Oh, sorry about that, not sure how I missed it. :/
> altogether. I stand by that.
Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I am sorry, I disagree. Proposed form is hard readable. Is not possible to
> simply copy/paste.
Why do you care? You can use \sf if you want to copy the
function code.
> I cannot to imagine any use case for proposed format.
My vote (which was not counted by Stephen) was
Hi
2016-09-28 18:57 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane :
> Pavel Stehule writes:
> > 2016-09-28 16:03 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane :
> >> I propose to push my current patch (ie, move PL function
> >> source code to \df+ footers), and we can use it in HEAD
Pavel Stehule writes:
> 2016-09-28 16:03 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane :
>> I propose to push my current patch (ie, move PL function
>> source code to \df+ footers), and we can use it in HEAD for awhile
>> and see what we think. We can alway improve or revert it
2016-09-28 16:03 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane :
> Rushabh Lathia writes:
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Frost
> wrote:
> >> I feel like we're getting wrapped around the axle as it regards who is
> >> perceived to be voting
Rushabh Lathia writes:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> I feel like we're getting wrapped around the axle as it regards who is
>> perceived to be voting for what.
> Thanks Stephen Frost for listing down all the concerns
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I feel like we're getting wrapped around the axle as it regards who is
> perceived to be voting for what.
Thanks Stephen Frost for listing down all the concerns from the people
on the different approaches.
On Tue, Sep
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> I think the debate is more about whether moving the source display
> functionality over to \sf is a better solution than rearranging \df+
> output. (If we had consensus to do that, I'd be happy to go code it,
> but I'm not going to invest the effort when
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> That doesn't mean, at least to me, that we should forgo considering
>> better alternatives.
> I don't think so, either, but if we could agree that "Tom's patch >
> doing
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I feel like we're getting wrapped around the axle as it regards who is
> perceived to be voting for what.
True. It's not very clear; thanks for trying to shed some light on it.
> I don't particularly care for it
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I agree that "do nothing" isn't a good option. I'm not terribly
> > thrilled with just putting the source code at the bottom of the \df+
> > output either, though it's at
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I agree that "do nothing" isn't a good option. I'm not terribly
> thrilled with just putting the source code at the bottom of the \df+
> output either, though it's at least slightly less ridiculous than trying
> to put
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Pavel Stehule writes:
> > 2016-09-23 7:22 GMT+02:00 Rushabh Lathia :
> >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> If it's unreadable in \df+, how would \df++ make that
Pavel Stehule writes:
> 2016-09-23 7:22 GMT+02:00 Rushabh Lathia :
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> If it's unreadable in \df+, how would \df++ make that any better?
>> Eventhough source code as part
2016-09-23 7:22 GMT+02:00 Rushabh Lathia :
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Rushabh Lathia writes:
>> > I agree with the argument in this thread, having "Source code" as part
>> > of \df+ is bit
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Rushabh Lathia writes:
> > I agree with the argument in this thread, having "Source code" as part
> > of \df+ is bit annoying, specifically when output involve some really
> > big PL language
Rushabh Lathia writes:
> I agree with the argument in this thread, having "Source code" as part
> of \df+ is bit annoying, specifically when output involve some really
> big PL language functions. Having is separate does make \df+ output more
> readable. So I would vote
I agree with the argument in this thread, having "Source code" as part of
\df+
is bit annoying, specifically when output involve some really big PL
language
functions. Having is separate does make \df+ output more readable. So I
would
vote for \df++ rather then adding the source code as part of
Hi
2016-09-06 0:05 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane :
> I wrote:
> > Pavel Stehule writes:
> >> Using footer for this purpose is little bit strange. What about
> following
> >> design?
> >> 1. move out source code of PL functions from \df+
> >> 2. allow not unique
I wrote:
> Pavel Stehule writes:
>> Using footer for this purpose is little bit strange. What about following
>> design?
>> 1. move out source code of PL functions from \df+
>> 2. allow not unique filter in \sf and allow to display multiple functions
> Wasn't that
Pavel Stehule writes:
> Using footer for this purpose is little bit strange. What about following
> design?
> 1. move out source code of PL functions from \df+
> 2. allow not unique filter in \sf and allow to display multiple functions
Wasn't that proposed and rejected
2016-08-24 15:42 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane :
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > On 8/22/16 1:52 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >> If I understand to purpose of this patch - it is compromise - PL source
> >> is removed from table, but it is printed in
I wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> What does it do if you are displaying more than one function?
> It prints more than one footer. It's very much like the way that, say,
> rules are printed for tables by \d.
Or to be concrete: instead of
regression=#
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 8/22/16 1:52 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> If I understand to purpose of this patch - it is compromise - PL source
>> is removed from table, but it is printed in result.
> What does it do if you are displaying more than one function?
On 8/22/16 1:52 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> If I understand to purpose of this patch - it is compromise - PL source
> is removed from table, but it is printed in result.
What does it do if you are displaying more than one function?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
2016-08-22 18:19 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas :
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 4:49 AM, Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
> > This feature shows source code for PL function when \df statement was
> used.
> > I am not too sure, if this functionality is necessary - but I
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 4:49 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> This feature shows source code for PL function when \df statement was used.
> I am not too sure, if this functionality is necessary - but I don't see any
> argument against. Sometimes it can be useful, mainly when we
Hi
2016-07-13 19:01 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane :
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > On 7/12/16 7:11 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> I'm curious how it's useful and in what way \sf does not accomplish what
> >> you use \df+ for.
>
> > One main use is to
On Jul 13, 2016, at 12:25 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I disagree. Adding a column is certainly changing the structure, as is
> removing one. This certainly hasn't changed my opinion that it's
> worthwhile to consider this change, even at this point in the release
> cycle,
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 7/12/16 7:11 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I'm curious how it's useful and in what way \sf does not accomplish what
> > you use \df+ for.
>
> One main use is to see multiple related functions next to each other and
> compare their
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 7/12/16 7:11 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> I'm curious how it's useful and in what way \sf does not accomplish what
>> you use \df+ for.
> One main use is to see multiple related functions next to each other and
> compare their source
On 7/12/16 7:11 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I'm curious how it's useful and in what way \sf does not accomplish what
> you use \df+ for.
One main use is to see multiple related functions next to each other and
compare their source code. But also because one is used to \df and
wants to see
* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 7/12/16 12:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > It's sounding to me like we have consensus on this proposal to further
> > change \df+ to replace the "Source code" column with "Internal name",
> > which is prosrc for C and internal-language
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I'm quite fond of having the full source code show in \df+ and I'm
> against removing it on short notice past beta2, discussed under a
> "false" subject heading.
How do you use it?
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development,
On 7/12/16 12:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's sounding to me like we have consensus on this proposal to further
> change \df+ to replace the "Source code" column with "Internal name",
> which is prosrc for C and internal-language functions but NULL otherwise.
>
> If I've not heard objections by
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> >> Are we satisfied with telling people to use \sf to see the source code
> >> for a PL function? Or should there be another variant of \df that
> >> still provides
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> Are we satisfied with telling people to use \sf to see the source code
>> for a PL function? Or should there be another variant of \df that
>> still provides source code?
> I don't see the point in having a
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > Agreed. I don't have any issue with "Language", really, but I agree
> > that "Source code" makes the output pretty ridiculous. I also liked the
> > idea of changing the name to "internal name" or something
Stephen Frost writes:
> Agreed. I don't have any issue with "Language", really, but I agree
> that "Source code" makes the output pretty ridiculous. I also liked the
> idea of changing the name to "internal name" or something along those
> lines, rather than having it be
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> >> So prosrc for internal/C and NULL for others? WFM.
>
> > And so we'd remove "Language" at the same time?
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> So prosrc for internal/C and NULL for others? WFM.
> And so we'd remove "Language" at the same time? That does not sound bad to me.
Hm, I wasn't thinking
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
>> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>
>> > It would certainly be easy enough to do that, as long as you don't mind
>> > hard-wiring into psql the knowledge that "internal" and "C" are
Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > It would certainly be easy enough to do that, as long as you don't mind
> > hard-wiring into psql the knowledge that "internal" and "C" are the
> > languages to show prosrc for. "Source code" would no longer be a very
> >
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > I agree with removing the source code field, though I did like the
> > suggestion mentioned elsewhere for having it shown when it's just a C
> > symbol but not otherwise. If we can find a way to have the C
Stephen Frost writes:
> I agree with removing the source code field, though I did like the
> suggestion mentioned elsewhere for having it shown when it's just a C
> symbol but not otherwise. If we can find a way to have the C symbol
> shown when it's a C or internal function,
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> (Of course, if we were to get rid of "Source code", the point
> >> would be moot ...)
>
> > I still think that having source
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (Of course, if we were to get rid of "Source code", the point
>> would be moot ...)
> I still think that having source code is useful for debugging, so I
> left it out.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> If we're keeping the "Source code" column, I'd be inclined to keep
> "Language" adjacent to that. When thinking of a function as a black
> box, both language and source code are implementation details; but
> all the other
Michael Paquier writes:
>> - Reordering the columns, I'd suggest as follows):
>> -- Schema
>> -- Name
>> -- Result data type
>> -- Argument data types
>> -- Type
>> -- Language
>> -- Volatility
>> -- Parallel
>> -- Owner
>> -- Security
>> -- ACL
>> -- Source code
>> --
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> So to sum up:
> - Add "Parallel" column
> - Add ACLs
> - Reordering the columns, I'd suggest as follows):
> -- Schema
> -- Name
> -- Result data type
> -- Argument data types
> -- Type
> -- Language
> --
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>
> 2016-07-08 20:39 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane :
>>
>> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> > As a separate concern, IMO having the source code in a \df+ column is
>> > almost completely
2016-07-08 20:39 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane :
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > As a separate concern, IMO having the source code in a \df+ column is
> > almost completely useless.
>
> Good point. It works okay for C/internal functions, but in those cases
> it's
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> As a separate concern, IMO having the source code in a \df+ column is
> almost completely useless.
Good point. It works okay for C/internal functions, but in those cases
it's usually redundant with the proname. For PL functions it's a disaster
Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
> > On Friday, July 8, 2016, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> Fujii-san has reminded me of the fact that we do not show in \df+ the
> >> parallel status of a function. The output of \df+ is already very
> >>
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Amit Kapila writes:
> > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Michael Paquier
> > wrote:
> >> Okay. Here we go. I named the column for the parallel information
> >> "Parallelism".
>
> > Another option could
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
> > On Friday, July 8, 2016, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> Fujii-san has reminded me of the fact that we do not show in \df+ the
> >> parallel status of a function. The output of \df+
Amit Kapila writes:
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> Okay. Here we go. I named the column for the parallel information
>> "Parallelism".
> Another option could be to name it as Parallel Mode.
I'd go with just
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Friday, July 8, 2016, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Fujii-san has reminded me of the fact that we do not show in \df+ the
>> parallel status of a function. The output of \df+ is already very
>> large, so I guess that any
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Friday, July 8, 2016, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Fujii-san has reminded me of the
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Friday, July 8, 2016, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Fujii-san has reminded me of the fact that we do not show in \df+ the
>> parallel status of a function. The output of \df+
2016-07-08 9:00 GMT+02:00 Michael Paquier :
> Hi all,
>
> Fujii-san has reminded me of the fact that we do not show in \df+ the
> parallel status of a function. The output of \df+ is already very
> large, so I guess that any people mentally sane already use it with
>
On Friday, July 8, 2016, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Fujii-san has reminded me of the fact that we do not show in \df+ the
> parallel status of a function. The output of \df+ is already very
> large, so I guess that any people mentally sane already use it with
75 matches
Mail list logo