2016-09-28 21:59 GMT+02:00 Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com>:
> Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > I am sorry, I disagree. Proposed form is hard readable. Is not possible > to > > simply copy/paste. > > Why do you care? You can use \sf if you want to copy&paste the > function code. > I know so I can use \sf. But I don't see any sense to have less readable output of any psql command. > > > I cannot to imagine any use case for proposed format. > > My vote (which was not counted by Stephen) was to remove it from \df+ > altogether. I stand by that. People who are used to seeing the output > in \df+ will wonder "where the heck did it go" and eventually figure it > out, at which point it's no longer a problem. We're not breaking > anyone's scripts, that's for sure. > I prefer removing before proposed solution with proposed format. We are in cycle because prosrc field is used for two independent features - and then it can be hard to find a agreement. Name of function in dll is some different than PL function body. But it is stored and displayed in one field - and it is impossible do it well. Regards Pavel > > If we're not removing it, I +0 support the option of moving it to > footers. I'm -1 on doing nothing. > > -- > Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ > PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services >
