a short trip in the wayback machine

Lists: pgsql-hackers
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: a short trip in the wayback machine
Date: 2009-08-09 00:53:55
Message-ID: 4A7E1E23.8090905@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

While following up a comment from Tom on my blog, I discovered that some
9 1/2 years ago in a patch bearing the comment:

Fixed psql double quoting of SQL ids
Fixed libpq printing functions

the documentation of psql's --no-readline option was removed
(psql-ref.sgml v 1.23). I think this was a mistake and it should be
restored :-) I'm quite never sure how far back to take pure docs
patches, though. Should I just fix HEAD, or HEAD plus 8.4, or all the
way back to 7.4?

cheers

andrew

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Subject: Re: a short trip in the wayback machine
Date: 2009-08-09 14:25:53
Message-ID: 200908091725.56989.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sunday 09 August 2009 03:53:55 Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> the documentation of psql's --no-readline option was removed
> (psql-ref.sgml v 1.23). I think this was a mistake and it should be
> restored :-)

Does that option have a point? Should the option be removed, perhaps?

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: a short trip in the wayback machine
Date: 2009-08-09 14:57:23
Message-ID: 4A7EE3D3.1020002@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Sunday 09 August 2009 03:53:55 Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> the documentation of psql's --no-readline option was removed
>> (psql-ref.sgml v 1.23). I think this was a mistake and it should be
>> restored :-)
>>
>
> Does that option have a point? Should the option be removed, perhaps?
>
>

It has at least one prominent user -
<http://people.planetpostgresql.org/andrew/index.php?/archives/31-A-tiny-psql-tip.html#comments>
;-)

cheers

andrew

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: a short trip in the wayback machine
Date: 2009-08-09 15:26:44
Message-ID: 12991.1249831604@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> the documentation of psql's --no-readline option was removed
> (psql-ref.sgml v 1.23). I think this was a mistake and it should be
> restored :-) I'm quite never sure how far back to take pure docs
> patches, though. Should I just fix HEAD, or HEAD plus 8.4, or all the
> way back to 7.4?

Clearly a mistake. If you have the energy to patch it all the way
back, please do.

regards, tom lane

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Subject: Re: a short trip in the wayback machine
Date: 2009-08-09 18:11:10
Message-ID: 200908092111.11523.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sunday 09 August 2009 17:57:23 Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On Sunday 09 August 2009 03:53:55 Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >> the documentation of psql's --no-readline option was removed
> >> (psql-ref.sgml v 1.23). I think this was a mistake and it should be
> >> restored :-)
> >
> > Does that option have a point? Should the option be removed, perhaps?
>
> It has at least one prominent user -
> <http://people.planetpostgresql.org/andrew/index.php?/archives/31-A-tiny-ps
>ql-tip.html#comments> ;-)

OK, if you re-document it, it may be useful to mention that as a use case.