| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2016-07-08 18:39:26 |
| Message-ID: | 21375.1468003166@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> As a separate concern, IMO having the source code in a \df+ column is
> almost completely useless.
Good point. It works okay for C/internal functions, but in those cases
it's usually redundant with the proname. For PL functions it's a disaster
formatting-wise, because they're often wide and/or multi-line.
> I propose to split that out to a separate
> \df command (say \df% or \df/) that shows *only* the source code.
As to those names, ick. Also, what do you envision the output looking
like when multiple functions are selected? Or would you ban wildcards?
If you do, it's not clear what this does that \sf doesn't do better.
Maybe, given the existence of \sf, we should just drop prosrc from \df+
altogether.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-07-08 18:42:20 | Re: [BUG] pg_basebackup from disconnected standby fails |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-07-08 18:33:06 | Re: MVCC overheads |