2016-10-12 1:51 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > As was mentioned, this thread doesn't really need a patch but rather > > some comment from those who have voiced a -1 on removing the PL source > > code column. > > > In another, perhaps vain, attempt to get to a consensus, here's what it > > looks like the current standings are for "Remove source from \df+", > > I think this is oversimplified, because there are multiple proposals on > the table, and it's not entirely clear to me who approves of which. > We have at least the following options: > > 1. Do nothing. > 2. Remove the prosrc column from \df+ altogether. > 3. Suppress prosrc for PL functions, but continue to show it for > C and internal functions (and, probably, rename it to something > other than "Source code" in that case). > 4. #3 plus show PL function source code in footers. > > Personally I like #4 better than #3 better than #2 better than #1, > but the only one I'm really against is "do nothing". >
My preferences: #2, #1 - I dislike #4 more than #1 - I don't see any benefit there Regards Pavel > > > There have been a number of voices asking that we do *something* here. > > Yes. I agree with your summary that Peter is the only one who appears > to be in favor of "do nothing" (and even there, his complaint was at > least partly procedural not substantive). > > regards, tom lane >
