Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
>> Probably better if I break this up in logical chunks too. This patch 
>> only addresses the refactoring you requested here:
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/28719(dot)1230996378(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
> 
> This looks sane to me in a quick once-over, though I've not tested it.

Thanks -- committed.

> A small suggestion for future patches: don't bother to reindent code
> chunks that aren't changing --- it just complicates the diff with a
> lot of uninteresting whitespace changes.  You can either do that after
> review, or leave it to be done by pgindent.  (Speaking of which, we
> need to schedule that soon...)

Sorry. "cvs diff -cb" seems to help (see attached). It is half the size 
and much more readable.

Joe

In response to

• Re: dblink patches for comment at 2009-06-02 01:09:54 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Ron Mayer	Date: 2009-06-02 03:30:49
	Subject: Re: explain analyze rows=%.0f
Previous:	From: Hiroshi Inoue	Date: 2009-06-02 03:22:13
	Subject: Re: [GENERAL] trouble with to_char('L')