Would anyone object to \df displaying a function's volatility? Maybe
limit it to \df+?

Ideally we would have a short header for the column so that it doesn't
take too much space, and specify the setting with a single letter. The
meaning of each letter we could display at the bottom of the table as a
footer (something we were going to do for \z too I think?)

Thoughts?

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

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

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Would anyone object to \df displaying a function's volatility? Maybe
> limit it to \df+?
>
> Ideally we would have a short header for the column so that it doesn't
> take too much space, and specify the setting with a single letter. The
> meaning of each letter we could display at the bottom of the table as a
> footer (something we were going to do for \z too I think?)
>
> Thoughts?

I think it would be about time +1

Joshua D. Drake



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

On May 23, 2008, at 8:57 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Would anyone object to \df displaying a function's volatility? Maybe
>> limit it to \df+?
>> Ideally we would have a short header for the column so that it
>> doesn't
>> take too much space, and specify the setting with a single letter.
>> The
>> meaning of each letter we could display at the bottom of the table
>> as a
>> footer (something we were going to do for \z too I think?)
>> Thoughts?
>
> I think it would be about time +1

I'd like to see the function comment as well in \df+. (And probably
for most database objects that don't already show the comment.)

Michael Glaesemann
michael.glaesemann@myyearbook.com




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

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Would anyone object to \df displaying a function's volatility? Maybe
> limit it to \df+?

Huh? \df+ has displayed volatility for a long time, and I don't recall
any great demand to move it into \df.

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

Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > Would anyone object to \df displaying a function's volatility? Maybe
> > limit it to \df+?
>
> Huh? \df+ has displayed volatility for a long time, and I don't recall
> any great demand to move it into \df.

Hmm, right. Maybe the problem I have is that we made \df+ so wide so as
to be almost useless by now ...

I think this is mostly caused by the "args" column getting too wide.
Can we remove the OUT params from it?

BTW what happened to the idea of displaying only user functions by
default?

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

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

On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 10:05:10AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > > Would anyone object to \df displaying a function's volatility? Maybe
> > > limit it to \df+?
> >
> > Huh? \df+ has displayed volatility for a long time, and I don't recall
> > any great demand to move it into \df.
>
> Hmm, right. Maybe the problem I have is that we made \df+ so wide so as
> to be almost useless by now ...
>
> I think this is mostly caused by the "args" column getting too wide.
> Can we remove the OUT params from it?

Not a great idea. Maybe having the output of \df+ be \x'd would help
more.

> BTW what happened to the idea of displaying only user functions by
> default?

Some of the people who'd approve such a patch have trouble imagining
why the other 99.99%+ of the use base find having the system functions
appear by default to be useless clutter

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

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

David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
> On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 10:05:10AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Hmm, right. Maybe the problem I have is that we made \df+ so wide so as
>> to be almost useless by now ...
>>
>> I think this is mostly caused by the "args" column getting too wide.
>> Can we remove the OUT params from it?

> Not a great idea.

Yeah, you'd certainly have to provide them somewhere, and so this would
just amount to splitting one column into two.

>> BTW what happened to the idea of displaying only user functions by
>> default?

IIRC it was more-or-less agreed to that the 'S' modifier ought to work
uniformly for all object types the way it does now for tables, but there
is no patch in the queue.

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

On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 01:39:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
> > On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 10:05:10AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> Hmm, right. Maybe the problem I have is that we made \df+ so
> >> wide so as to be almost useless by now ...
> >>
> >> I think this is mostly caused by the "args" column getting too
> >> wide. Can we remove the OUT params from it?
>
> > Not a great idea.
>
> Yeah, you'd certainly have to provide them somewhere, and so this
> would just amount to splitting one column into two.

How about splitting them up with newlines instead of (or in addition
to) commas?

> >> BTW what happened to the idea of displaying only user functions
> >> by default?
>
> IIRC it was more-or-less agreed to that the 'S' modifier ought to
> work uniformly for all object types the way it does now for tables,
> but there is no patch in the queue.

OK, since I did the whining, I get to prepare a patch. I'll see how
far I can get today.

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160


> BTW what happened to the idea of displaying only user
> functions by default?

It's waiting on me to submit an updated patch, per Heikki's
request. I'll try to get one out this week.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200805251718
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF...9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEAREDAAYFAkg515sACgkQvJuQZxSWSsjHSACgk2LoV4IHn3 6VyM2ubbShQGxR
Tl0AoILbyhbHCdcFjjr3+Kps6/2EYoQ+
=p6f6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



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