Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > What about the *.txt extension? Do we want that or remove it? I would
> > prefer its removal.
> I agreed with the point about making those files easily editable.
> I'm not dead set on it, but I don't see what we gain by not having
> the .txt there --- we still have to document a different file name
> and different location than is the case on Unix.
My feeling is that the *.txt is actually misleading because people will
think of it as a file full of freeform text (paragraphs) and not a
Does anyone know of a configuration file that uses *.txt? I don't.
Perhaps there is another extension that is good for Win32 but i don't
think *.txt is it.
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
In response to
pgsql-hackers-win32 by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-01-07 22:19:18|
|Subject: Re: [BUGS] More SSL questions.. |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-01-07 18:55:25|
|Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Initdb failing for no apparent reason in 8.0.0beta4 on windows |