* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@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.
That's certainly fair and I had begun that email by trying to come up
with a way to represent everyone's positions fairly but, frankly, after
an hour of reading through the thread and noting the various changes in
positions, I got to the point where I felt...
> > 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).
We really need a response on this part if we're going to actually make
any progress.
If we'd actually like to do a formal condorcet-style vote (or something
similar which allows preferences to be considered) over the various
options, I'm willing to put effort into making it happen, but only if
we'd actually agree to accept the result, otherwise we're just back here
again.
Thanks!
Stephen
