2016-09-23 7:22 GMT+02:00 Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com>: > > > 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 functions), > 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. >
++ is little bit obscure. So better to remove src everywhere. Regards Pavel > > > >> regards, tom lane >> > > > > -- > Rushabh Lathia >
