Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> (Of course, if we were to get rid of "Source code", the point >> would be moot ...)
> I still think that having source code is useful for debugging, so I > left it out. Note for the committer who will perhaps pick up this > patch: I left out "Source Code", but feel free to remove it if you > think the contrary. It is easier to remove code than adding it back. I still think removing it would make \df+ output substantially more readable whenever any PLs are involved. I'm tempted to propose adding something like \df++ to include the source code for those who really want that. However, by my count the vote is two in favor of removing it versus two against, which is certainly not any kind of consensus, so nothing is going to happen on that front right away. Meanwhile, we definitely need to get the "Parallel" column into 9.6, so I'll review and push the rest of the changes. 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