| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(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: | 2016-07-12 17:46:35 |
| Message-ID: | f16571cc-bf6f-53a1-6809-f09f48f0a832@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/12/16 12:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's sounding to me like we have consensus on this proposal to further
> change \df+ to replace the "Source code" column with "Internal name",
> which is prosrc for C and internal-language functions but NULL otherwise.
>
> If I've not heard objections by tomorrow I'll go make that change.
>
> Are we satisfied with telling people to use \sf to see the source code
> for a PL function? Or should there be another variant of \df that
> still provides source code?
I'm quite fond of having the full source code show in \df+ and I'm
against removing it on short notice past beta2, discussed under a
"false" subject heading.
This is long-standing, intentional behavior, not a regression, and
changing it should get wider consultation. Please submit a patch to the
next commit fest instead.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2016-07-12 17:48:59 | Re: pg_basebackup wish list |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2016-07-12 17:31:50 | Re: Showing parallel status in \df+ |