Re: Remove "Source Code" column from \df+ ?

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
>> * Peter Eisentraut (peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
>>> I'm OK with just removing all the source codes from the \d family and
>>> using the \s family instead.
>
>> Ok, great, thanks for clarifying that. Since we only have '\sf' today,
>> I think the prevailing option here is then to make the change to
>> removing 'prosrc' from \df+, have an 'internal name' column, and have
>> users use \sf for functions.
>
> I'm not sure that Peter was voting for retaining "internal name", but
> personally I prefer that to deleting prosrc entirely, so +1.
>
>> Personally, I like the idea of a '\sv' for views, though we should
>> discuss that on a new thread.
>
> We have \sv already no?
>
> I'm kind of -1 on removing view definitions from \d+. It's worked like
> that for a very long time and Peter's is the first complaint I've heard.
> I think changing it is likely to annoy more people than will think it's
> an improvement.

I'm still not used to the change that I have to use \d+ rather than \d
to see the view definition. It's the #1 thing I want to see when
examining a view, and since 2fe1b4dd651917aad2accac7ba8adb44d9f54930 I
have to remember to stick a + sign in there. So, in short, I agree.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company