Re: Showing parallel status in \df+
| От | Rushabh Lathia |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Showing parallel status in \df+ |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAGPqQf1_=NwdqAfjSvVe9hMmsRwpg=mAAgPzTnNzz8BFzoohxA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Showing parallel status in \df+ (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 12:07 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi2016-09-28 18:57 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
> 2016-09-28 16:03 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
>> I propose to push my current patch (ie, move PL function
>> source code to \df+ footers), and we can use it in HEAD for awhile
>> and see what we think. We can alway improve or revert it later.
> I had some objection to format of source code - it should be full source
> code, not just header and body.
That would be redundant with stuff that's in the main part of the \df
display. I really don't need to see the argument types twice, for instance.I am sorry, I disagree. Proposed form is hard readable. Is not possible to simply copy/paste.I cannot to imagine any use case for proposed format.
I just did testing on Tom's patch - which show pl source code as a footer
(show-pl-source-code-as-a-footer.patch). I am sorry, but I agree with Paval,
(show-pl-source-code-as-a-footer.patch). I am sorry, but I agree with Paval,
its is hard readable - and its not adding any simplification on what we have
now.
now.
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
> We are in cycle because prosrc field is used for two independent features -
> and then it can be hard to find a agreement.
> I thought pretty much everyone was on board with the idea of keeping
> prosrc in \df+ for internal/C-language functions (and then probably
> renaming the column, since it isn't actually source code in that case).
>The argument is over what to do for PL functions, which is only one use
> case not two
> We are in cycle because prosrc field is used for two independent features -
> and then it can be hard to find a agreement.
> I thought pretty much everyone was on board with the idea of keeping
> prosrc in \df+ for internal/C-language functions (and then probably
> renaming the column, since it isn't actually source code in that case).
>The argument is over what to do for PL functions, which is only one use
> case not two
Thinking more, I am good for keeping prosrc in \df+ for internal/C-language
functions (with changed column name). and then \sf will be used to
get the source code for PL, SQL, language.
RegardsPavel
regards, tom lane
--
Rushabh Lathia
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: