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". > 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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers