David Christensen <david(at)endpoint(dot)com> writes:
> That's a good point about forward-compatibility. In that case, I'm
> not sure if "default" is the best name for the human-readable format,
> but I didn't like "human-readable" ;-). I assume that should have an
> explicit spelling, and not just be the format that we get if we don't
> otherwise specify. Ideas, anyone?
I think this patch has near zero usecase already, and more than one
output format is *definitely* a waste of time. Forget the argument and
just print the "human readable" format.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Hitoshi Harada||Date: 2010-01-27 15:43:05|
|Subject: Re: Review: Typed Table|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2010-01-27 15:41:16|
|Subject: make everything target|