On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 10/12/16 11:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm not sure that Peter was voting for retaining "internal name", but >> personally I prefer that to deleting prosrc entirely, so +1. > > I'm not sure what the point of showing the internal name would be if we > have already declared that the source code of non-C functions is not > that interesting. But I don't have a strong feeling about it.
There is still an open CommitFest entry for this patch, which is marked "Ready for Committer", but it looks to me like there's no consensus position here. Different people have different preferences, and every option that is somebody's first preference seems to be somebody else's last preference. So I suggest that we give this one up for a lost cause and mark it Rejected. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
