| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(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: | 2016-10-01 00:47:38 |
| Message-ID: | 25307.1475282858@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> 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 eventually figure it
>> out, at which point it's no longer a problem. We're not breaking
>> anyone's scripts, that's for sure.
>>
>> If we're not removing it, I +0 support the option of moving it to
>> footers. I'm -1 on doing nothing.
> I agree with everything Alvaro just said.
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.
Personally I'm on the edge of washing my hands of the whole thing...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-10-01 01:08:18 | Re: COPY as a set returning function |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-10-01 00:44:54 | Re: Macro customizable hashtable / bitmapscan & aggregation perf |