"Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes
> On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 22:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Does that look better or worse to you?
> I agree the patch's format is a bit off. What about
> "mi" btree (i), tablespace "testspace"
> "PRIMARY KEY" is currently separated from the rest of the index
> description via a comma -- although on the other hand the column list
> isn't preceded by a comma. Perhaps this whole format should be
yes, you are right, both forms you showed up are better than mine - the
reason I use that format is because add_tablespace_footer() prints a
"Tablespace: \"tablespace_name\"" in the PQExpBufferData. I could hack the
content in the buffer to make it looks better. Is this acceptable?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: John Hansen||Date: 2005-06-04 02:36:58|
|Subject: Re: executing OS programs from pg |
|Previous:||From: Luke Lonergan||Date: 2005-06-03 22:15:19|
|Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2005-06-04 02:59:43|
|Subject: Re: psql: \d+ show tablespace of indices|
|Previous:||From: Neil Conway||Date: 2005-06-04 02:07:33|
|Subject: Re: Unused variable in explain.c|