| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Masao Fujii <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Showing parallel status in \df+ |
| Date: | 2016-07-12 16:17:57 |
| Message-ID: | 24977.1468340277@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> 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 "source code", if we keep the column for
> C/internal functions. Keeping is as "source code" wouldn't be accurate.
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 tomorrow I'll go make that change.
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?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-07-12 16:26:38 | Re: use of SEQ_MINVALUE in btree_gin |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2016-07-12 15:04:45 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold < |