On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "Marko Tiikkaja" <pgm...@joh.to> writes: > > Here's the third version of this patch, hopefully this time without any > > problems. I looked through the patch and it looked OK, but I did that > > last time too so I wouldn't trust myself on that one. > > Applied with corrections. > > The xml expected output was still wrong - to do that part right, you > need to update xml.out with an xml-enabled build and xml_1.out with a > non-xml-enabled build. > > Also, it seemed to me that the patch didn't go far enough, in that it > only touched pg_get_viewdef and not the sister functions. pg_dump would > certainly want pg_get_ruledef to have the same behavior, and in general > the documentation seems to me to be clear that all these functions have > similar pretty-print-vs-not behavior. As committed, the pretty_bool > argument only affects PRETTY_PAREN processing for all of them. > > I also went ahead and set the default wrap column to zero rather than > the former 79, since it seemed clear that people like that behavior > better. > > 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 >
Was this ever committed into core? Apologies, I'm not very familiar with looking through the commit history of the source code and I don't see anything about this option or pretty-print outputs in the pg_dump/restore docs for 9.3. Had someone asking me about this feature for pg_extractor https://github.com/omniti-labs/pg_extractor/issues/28 -- Keith Fiske Database Administrator OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc. http://www.keithf4.com
