Re: Showing parallel status in \df+

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+.

Personally I didn't like idea for keeping "source code" for C/internal
functions as part of \df+ and moving others out of it. If we really want to
move "source code" from \df+, then it should be consistent - irrespective
of language. So may be remove "source code" completely from \df+ and add
\df++ support for the "source code".

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 12:14 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>

--
Rushabh Lathia