"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:57:50 -0400
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So, quite aside from the question of whether we care to support ReST,
>> my opinion is that this patch fails to do so, and a significantly more
>> invasive patch would be needed to do it.
> I suppose it is my fault for mentioning ReST. That was the reason I
> looked into this but that is not what the final proposal is.
Well, if you can't just paste your output into ReST without having to
hand-munge it afterwards, then ISTM the argument for having this
additional bit of complexity in our printing routines really falls flat.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
