Re: Showing parallel status in \df+

Hi

2016-09-06 0:05 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:

> I wrote:
> > Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> Using footer for this purpose is little bit strange. What about
> following
> >> design?
> >> 1. move out source code of PL functions from \df+
> >> 2. allow not unique filter in \sf and allow to display multiple
> functions
>
> > Wasn't that proposed and rejected upthread?
>
> So ... why did you put this patch in "Waiting on Author" state? AFAIK,
> we had dropped the idea of relying on \sf for this, mainly because
> Peter complained about \df+ no longer providing source code. I follow
> his point: if you're used to using \df+ to see source code, you probably
> can figure it out quickly if that command shows the source in a different
> place than before. But if it doesn't show it at all, using \sf instead
> might not occur to you right away.
>

I see only one situation, when I want to see more then one source code -
checking overloaded functions. I prefer to see complete source code - in
\sf format. But I don't remember, when I did it last time. So I can live
without it well.

I am thinking, there is strong agreement about reduction \dt+ result. I am
not sure about usability of showing source code in footer. It is not too
much readable - and the fact, so function's body is displayed not as CREATE
statements, does the result less readable.

Now I am thinking so using footer for this purpose is not too great idea -
maybe we can live better without it (without source code of PL in \dt+
result, I would to see only C function source there). If you like using
footer, then the format should be changed to be more consistent, readable?
I am not sure, how it can be enhanced.

Regards

Pavel

>
> regards, tom lane
>