From: | Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Remove source code display from \df+? |
Date: | 2023-03-03 04:49:16 |
Message-ID: | CAMsGm5f=Wti7Mg9A0efAaC5Sg-g57s-VDMr7FDiC_-R==-ddWA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 at 17:20, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > [ 0001-Remove-source-code-display-from-df-v6.patch ]
>
> Pushed after some editorialization on the test case.
>
Thanks!
One thing I noticed while testing is that if you apply \df+ to an
> aggregate function, it will show "Internal name" of "aggregate_dummy".
> While that's an accurate description of what's in prosrc, it seems
> not especially useful and perhaps indeed confusing to novices.
> So I thought about suppressing it. However, that would require
> a server-version-dependent test and I wasn't quite convinced it'd
> be worth the trouble. Any thoughts on that?
>
I think it’s OK. Right now \df+ claims that the source code for an
aggregate function is “aggregate_dummy”; that’s probably more untrue than
saying that its internal name is “aggregate_dummy”. There are several
features of aggregate functions that are always defined the same way by the
creation process; who’s to say they don’t all have a shared dummy internal
name?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrey Borodin | 2023-03-03 04:52:49 | Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Support load balancing in libpq |
Previous Message | Keisuke Kuroda | 2023-03-03 04:41:23 | Re: Date-time extraneous fields with reserved keywords |