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.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


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

Reply via email to