2016-10-03 21:54 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>:
> 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.
I can write the patch - I am sure so cleaned \df+ output will be better
than what we have now.
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company