On 7/12/16 12:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's sounding to me like we have consensus on this proposal to further
> change \df+ to replace the "Source code" column with "Internal name",
> which is prosrc for C and internal-language functions but NULL otherwise.
>
> If I've not heard objections by tomorrow I'll go make that change.
>
> Are we satisfied with telling people to use \sf to see the source code
> for a PL function? Or should there be another variant of \df that
> still provides source code?
I'm quite fond of having the full source code show in \df+ and I'm
against removing it on short notice past beta2, discussed under a
"false" subject heading.
This is long-standing, intentional behavior, not a regression, and
changing it should get wider consultation. Please submit a patch to the
next commit fest instead.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
