| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2016-09-05 22:05:38 |
| Message-ID: | 26515.1473113138@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2016-09-05 23:18:58 | Re: Suggestions for first contribution? |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-09-05 21:54:54 | Bug in 9.6 tuplesort batch memory growth logic |