On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:22:38 -0500 (EST) Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.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 <da...@druid.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.
pg_border.diff
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers