2016-10-03 21:54 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Well, alternatively, can we get a consensus for doing that? People > > did speak against removing PL source code from \df+ altogether, but > > maybe they're willing to reconsider if the alternative is doing nothing. > > > > Personally I'm on the edge of washing my hands of the whole thing... > > The hand-washing strategy has a lot to recommend it; this thread is > going nowhere fast. I don't care enough to put up a big stink about > the idea of removing PL source code from \df+ output, but it's not > what I'd choose to do; let's call me -0 on that option. >
I can write the patch - I am sure so cleaned \df+ output will be better than what we have now. Regards Pavel > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >
