Hi 2016-09-06 0:05 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> I wrote: > > Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.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 >
