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

                        regards, tom lane

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

Reply via email to