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



> > 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

Reply via email to