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,
its is hard readable - and its not adding any simplification on what we have 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
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