All, Starting a new thread with an accurate name to see if we can't get somewhere with this topic.
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote: > 2016-10-08 23:46 GMT+02:00 Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com>: > > On 10/3/16 3:18 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> I am feeling consensus on removing source of PL from \dt+. There is > >> partial consensus on saving this field (renamed) for C and internal > >> language. I am not sure about consensus about \sf enhancing. > > > > FWIW, I'm completely in favor of ditching PL source code. I'm neutral on C > > and internal. > > here is a patch 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+", to me: Peter: -1 Robert: -0 Michael: +0 Alvaro: +1 Jim: +1 Pavel: +1 Rushabh: +1 Stephen: +1 Tom: +1 There have been a number of voices asking that we do *something* here. In short, I believe Robert's willing to concede to the majority (see: CA+TgmoaPCBUGF7yTcjmiU=m2sgo8jantnkhmtm1xkoar5uq...@mail.gmail.com), but we have yet to hear if Peter's stance has changed on this since his July posts (see: f16571cc-bf6f-53a1-6809-f09f48f0a...@2ndquadrant.com) and that's a remaining full -1 vote. Apologies if I got this wrong or mis-represented anyone, just trying to drive towards a consensus on this, so we can move on. Please speak up if you feel this was an incorrect assessment of your position. Full original thread is here: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAB7nPqTR3Vu3xKOZOYqSm-%2BbSZV0kqgeGAXD6w5GLbkbfd5Q6w%40mail.gmail.com Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature