All,
Starting a new thread with an accurate name to see if we can't get
somewhere with this topic.
* Pavel Stehule (pavel.stehule@gmail.com) wrote:
> 2016-10-08 23:46 GMT+02:00 Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@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=m2Sgo8jaNtnkHmTm1xKoaR5UQgoQ@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-f09f48f0a832@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
