Re: Showing parallel status in \df+ - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: Showing parallel status in \df+
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRAA7W47fDhzmFFPEdxqgww4BVUeEp-EVLXe7N1hOqz=Yw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Showing parallel status in \df+  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Showing parallel status in \df+  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers


2016-07-08 20:39 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.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.

prosrc has still benefit for me (for C hacking). Can we show data there only for internal or C functions? I agree, it useless for PLpgSQL.

Pavel

                        regards, tom lane


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Merlin Moncure
Date:
Subject: Re: MVCC overheads
Next
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: can we optimize STACK_DEPTH_SLOP