Re: Showing parallel status in \df+

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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 \df variant be the same as what \sf
> > is. I could possibly see extending \sf in some way, if there are things
> > that it doesn't currently do that \df does (and those things are
> > useful).
>
> I certainly agree that \sf already does what it does just fine. The
> question is more about whether anyone is likely to think that removing
> source code from \df+ output constitutes an important loss of
> functionality.

Right, I understood that to be your question and was intending to answer
it with "no."

> I had some vague ideas about inventing a new \df behavior modeled on
> the way that \d+ shows view definitions, that is, put the function body
> in a footer rather than in the tabular output proper. So you could
> imagine something like
>
> # \df++ foo*
> Schema | Name | ...
> --------+------+-...
> public | fooa | ...
> public | foob | ...
> Source code for fooa(int, text):
> ... body of fooa ...
> Source code for foob(text, text, numeric):
> ... body of foob ...
>
> But I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. And anyway we could add this
> later.

Agreed on both counts.

Thanks!

Stephen