From: | "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: new border setting in psql |
Date: | 2009-01-07 22:49:59 |
Message-ID: | 20090107174959.67be2221.darcy@druid.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:22:38 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> > So what have we decided about this suggestion. Should I submit the
> > patch or just forget about it? So far some people like it and some
> > people think that it is unneccessary. No one so far has suggested that
> > it would harm the system or people's use of it.
>
> I have gone over the discussion about this issue. I think there is
> interest in a ReST output format, but only a 100% ReST-compliant one. I
> don't think anyone felt they wanted a ReST-like format just for
> appearance sake. For that reason, I have added this TODO entry:
Really? I thought that the opposite was true, that the argument
against this change was that it was trying to be ReST. That's why I
made a few posts arguing that while it mostly worked ReST, it was
really just a logical extension of the existing border control.
> As I remember, no actual patch was posted for this.
There was. I am attaching it again in case there were any changes to
original files in the meantime.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
pg_border.diff | application/octet-stream | 4.6 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-01-07 22:56:32 | Re: Significant oversight in that #include-removal script |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-07 22:49:12 | Re: Significant oversight in that #include-removal script |