On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > I feel like we're getting wrapped around the axle as it regards who is > perceived to be voting for what.
Thanks Stephen Frost for listing down all the concerns from the people on the different approaches. On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > > I think the debate is more about whether moving the source display > > functionality over to \sf is a better solution than rearranging \df+ > > output. (If we had consensus to do that, I'd be happy to go code it, > > but I'm not going to invest the effort when it seems like we don't.) > > Right, that's the main question. > > > If we'd had \sf all along, I think it's likely that we would never > > have put source-code display into \df. But of course we didn't, > > Indeed. > > > and what would have been best in a green field is not necessarily > > what's best or achievable given existing reality. Both Robert and > > Peter have put forward the argument that people are used to finding > > this info in \df+ output, and I think that deserves a whole lot of > > weight. The \sf solution might be cleaner, but it's not so much > > better that it can justify forcing people to relearn their habits. > > > > So I think that rearranging \df+ output is really what we ought to > > be doing here. > > Alright, given that Robert's made it clear what his preference is and > you're in agreement with that, I'll remove my objection to moving down > that path. I agree that it's better than the current situation. If we > do end up improving \sf (which seems like a good idea, in general), then > we may wish to consider a display option to control if the source is > included in \df+ or not, but that doesn't need to bar this patch from > going in. > > The earlier comments on the thread hadn't been as clear with regard to > who held what opinions regarding the options and I'm glad that we were > able to reach a point where it was much clearer that there was strong > support for keeping the source in \df+. > > > I'm not necessarily wedded to any of the precise details of what I did > > in my patch --- for instance, maybe function bodies ought to be indented > > one tab stop? But we've not gotten to the merits of such points, for > > lack of agreement about whether this is the basic approach to take. > > As for this, I wouldn't indent or change the source at all. For > starters, indentation actually matters for some PLs, and I can certainly > see people wanting to be able to copy/paste from the output, now that > it'll be possible to reasonably do from the \df+ output. > Yes, it seems like "source code" as part of \df+ output (irrespective of language) is still very much useful for the people - it make sense not to change it at all. Also agree with Stephen view that once we do end up improving \sf - we may be re-consider removing source code from the \df+ output. For now we should stick with the goal for a thread that started out being about showing parallel status in \df+ output. > Thanks! > > Stephen > -- Rushabh Lathia www.EnterpriseDB.com
