* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Alvaro Herrera > > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> So prosrc for internal/C and NULL for others? WFM. > > > And so we'd remove "Language" at the same time? That does not sound bad to > > me. > > Hm, I wasn't thinking of that step. The main knock on "Source code" is > that it is usually too large to fit into the display grid --- but that > argument doesn't work against "Language". Also, while "Language" is > certainly an implementation detail in some sense, it is a pretty useful > detail: it gives you a good hint about the likely speed of the function, > for instance.
Agreed. I don't have any issue with "Language", really, but I agree that "Source code" makes the output pretty ridiculous. I also liked the idea of changing the name to "internal name" or something along those lines, rather than having it be "source code", if we keep the column for C/internal functions. Keeping is as "source code" wouldn't be accurate. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
