Re: Showing parallel status in \df+

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(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: 2016-09-28 21:39:48
Message-ID: 29896.1475098788@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> 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 then probably
renaming the column, since it isn't actually source code in that case).
The argument is over what to do for PL functions, which is only one use
case not two.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-09-28 22:06:08 Re: compiler warning read_objtype_from_string()
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2016-09-28 21:39:19 Re: kqueue