| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(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: | 2016-09-22 16:34:10 |
| Message-ID: | 27617.1474562050@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com> 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 for \df++ rather then adding the source code
> as part of footer for \df+.
If it's unreadable in \df+, how would \df++ make that any better?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-09-22 17:10:08 | Re: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618”: Permission denied” |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-09-22 16:32:00 | Re: 9.6 TAP tests and extensions |