D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: > 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.
Well, the discussion kind of went around and around. What I saw was people wanting ReST, but not wanting the patch to be rejected because it didn't do 100% ReST, saying they can clean up the output, or don't use backslashes. Being API-change-phobic, the idea of implementing something like ReST then adding full ReST later seems bad. Now, I think it could be implemented with a switch to turn off the ReST escaping, but in general ReST was the attactiveness of the patch. > > 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. I knew I had seen it but could not find it in the archives; I will link to this version on the TODO list. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
