Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Now you might suggest that the function itself is redundant with the
> information given in the FunctionScan node line and so we need only
> show the argument list. Unfortunately there are cases where this fails;
> in particular, the named function could have been "inlined" by the
> planner, meaning that the actual expression could be just about anything
> at all. So I think that trying to be cute is a bad idea and we should
> just print the nodetree as-is.
Oh. +1 then.
Regards,
--
dim