2016-07-08 20:39 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > As a separate concern, IMO having the source code in a \df+ column is > > almost completely useless. > > Good point. It works okay for C/internal functions, but in those cases > it's usually redundant with the proname. For PL functions it's a disaster > formatting-wise, because they're often wide and/or multi-line. > > > I propose to split that out to a separate > > \df command (say \df% or \df/) that shows *only* the source code. > > As to those names, ick. Also, what do you envision the output looking > like when multiple functions are selected? Or would you ban wildcards? > If you do, it's not clear what this does that \sf doesn't do better. > > Maybe, given the existence of \sf, we should just drop prosrc from \df+ > altogether. >
prosrc has still benefit for me (for C hacking). Can we show data there only for internal or C functions? I agree, it useless for PLpgSQL. Pavel > > regards, tom lane > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >
