On 7/12/16 12:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > It's sounding to me like we have consensus on this proposal to further > change \df+ to replace the "Source code" column with "Internal name", > which is prosrc for C and internal-language functions but NULL otherwise. > > If I've not heard objections by tomorrow I'll go make that change. > > Are we satisfied with telling people to use \sf to see the source code > for a PL function? Or should there be another variant of \df that > still provides source code?
I'm quite fond of having the full source code show in \df+ and I'm against removing it on short notice past beta2, discussed under a "false" subject heading. This is long-standing, intentional behavior, not a regression, and changing it should get wider consultation. Please submit a patch to the next commit fest instead. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
