| From: | Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Masao Fujii <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Showing parallel status in \df+ |
| Date: | 2016-09-23 05:22:27 |
| Message-ID: | CAGPqQf3SaYd2sY7VeMDqUhLWghr1De9805w5aOqGTG-bvWf=kg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I agree with the argument in this thread, having "Source code" as part
> > of \df+ is bit annoying, specifically when output involve some really
> > big PL language functions. Having is separate does make \df+ output more
> > readable. So I would vote for \df++ rather then adding the source code
> > as part of footer for \df+.
>
> If it's unreadable in \df+, how would \df++ make that any better?
>
>
Eventhough source code as part of \df+ is bit annoying (specifically for PL
functions),
I noticed the argument in this thread that it's useful information for some
of. So \df++
is just alternate option for the those who want the source code.
> regards, tom lane
>
--
Rushabh Lathia
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-09-23 05:56:16 | Re: pageinspect: Hash index support |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2016-09-23 05:05:38 | Re: Typo in libpq-int.h |