Tom Lane wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" writes:
> > On Monday, March 21, 2016, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> What about just discarding the old format entirely, and printing one of
> >> these two things:
> >>
> >> Timestamp (every Ns)
> >>
> >> User Given
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> I'd rather not omit sleep but removing "Watch every" is fine (preferred
> actually), so:
> Title Is Here Mon Mar 21 15:05:06 2016 (5s)
Meh ... seems a bit awkward to me. Couldn't you include " (5s)" in the
title, if you want that
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > Well, the title isn't normally centered, but yeah, that is odd. Yeah,
> > that is odd. Come to think of it, I think I might have expected the
> > title to appear *above*
Robert Haas writes:
> Well, the title isn't normally centered, but yeah, that is odd. Yeah,
> that is odd. Come to think of it, I think I might have expected the
> title to appear *above* "Watch every %s", not below it. That might
> decrease the oddness.
AFAICS, it
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:17 AM, David G. Johnston
wrote:
>> And does everybody agree that this is a desirable change?
>
> Adding the title is desirable. While I'm inclined to bike-shed this
> anything that gets it in I can live with and so I'm content letting the
>
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > And the patch attached gives the following output:
> > With title:
> > =# \watch 1
> > Watch every 1sSun Mar 20 22:28:38 2016
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> And the patch attached gives the following output:
> With title:
> =# \watch 1
> Watch every 1sSun Mar 20 22:28:38 2016
> popo
> a
> ---
> 1
> (1 row)
>
> And without title:
> Watch every 1sSun Mar 20
On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:40 AM, David G. Johnston
> wrote:
>> Adding -hackers for consideration in the Commitfest.
>
> I don't much like how this patch uses the arbitrary constant 50 in no
David Steele writes:
> On 3/17/16 5:07 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
>> Figured out it had to be added to 2016-09...done
> Hmm ... this patch is currently marked "needs review" in CF 2016-03. Am
> I missing something, should this have been closed?
The message I saw was
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Steele writes:
>> On 3/17/16 7:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> The message I saw was post-1-March. If it was in fact submitted in
>>> time for 2016-03, then we owe it a review.
>
>> I meant to add the
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:40 AM, David G. Johnston
wrote:
> Adding -hackers for consideration in the Commitfest.
I don't much like how this patch uses the arbitrary constant 50 in no
fewer than 5 locations.
Also, it seems like we could arrange for head_title to be ""
On 3/17/16 7:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Steele writes:
>> On 3/17/16 5:07 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
>>> Figured out it had to be added to 2016-09...done
>
>> Hmm ... this patch is currently marked "needs review" in CF 2016-03. Am
>> I missing something, should this
On 3/17/16 5:07 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
> Figured out it had to be added to 2016-09...done
Hmm ... this patch is currently marked "needs review" in CF 2016-03. Am
I missing something, should this have been closed?
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list
David Steele writes:
> On 3/17/16 7:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The message I saw was post-1-March. If it was in fact submitted in
>> time for 2016-03, then we owe it a review.
> I meant to add the CF record and forgot:
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/480
> It was added
14 matches
Mail list logo