On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> writes:
> > I agree with the argument in this thread, having "Source code" as part
> > of \df+ is bit annoying, specifically when output involve some really
> > big PL language functions. Having is separate does make \df+ output more
> > readable. So I would vote for \df++ rather then adding the source code
> > as part of footer for \df+.
> If it's unreadable in \df+, how would \df++ make that any better?
Eventhough source code as part of \df+ is bit annoying (specifically for PL
I noticed the argument in this thread that it's useful information for some
of.  So \df++
is just alternate option for the those who want the source code.

>                         regards, tom lane

Rushabh Lathia

Reply via email to