| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Susanne Ebrecht <susanne(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele(dot)bartolini(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Uppercase SGML entity declarations |
| Date: | 2011-04-04 18:48:49 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTi=M5=Js_UkLc-P-5EFmkpiFk-Vyvg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Even if that doesn't turn out to be the case, this is pretty harmless,
>> so maybe we should just apply it and move on.
>
> I have no great objection to the patch as such; just wondering what the
> roadmap is.
Me, too.
On a practical level, if we're going to do this, shouldn't we also do
!entity -> !ENTITY in Solution.pm?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2011-04-04 18:50:13 | Re: [HACKERS] Uppercase SGML entity declarations |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-04-04 18:42:07 | Re: [HACKERS] Uppercase SGML entity declarations |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2011-04-04 18:50:13 | Re: [HACKERS] Uppercase SGML entity declarations |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-04-04 18:43:25 | Re: time table for beta1 |