Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> Agreed. I don't have any issue with "Language", really, but I agree
> that "Source code" makes the output pretty ridiculous. I also liked the
> idea of changing the name to "internal name" or something along those
> lines, rather than having it be "source code", if we keep the column for
> C/internal functions. Keeping is as "source code" wouldn't be accurate.
It's sounding to me like we have consensus on this proposal to further
change \df+ to replace the "Source code" column with "Internal name",
which is prosrc for C and internal-language functions but NULL otherwise.
If I've not heard objections by tomorrow I'll go make that change.
Are we satisfied with telling people to use \sf to see the source code
for a PL function? Or should there be another variant of \df that
still provides source code?
regards, tom lane