On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@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.
