I wrote: > Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.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.
I see only one situation, when I want to see more then one source code - checking overloaded functions. I prefer to see complete source code - in \sf format. But I don't remember, when I did it last time. So I can live without it well.
I am thinking, there is strong agreement about reduction \dt+ result. I am not sure about usability of showing source code in footer. It is not too much readable - and the fact, so function's body is displayed not as CREATE statements, does the result less readable.
Now I am thinking so using footer for this purpose is not too great idea - maybe we can live better without it (without source code of PL in \dt+ result, I would to see only C function source there). If you like using footer, then the format should be changed to be more consistent, readable? I am not sure, how it can be enhanced.