I have gotten no reply to my request to either move the include
functionality into the guc-file.l or remove it and just add docs for the
config location part of the patch. I now would like someone else to
take the patch and make those changes to get it applied before feature
freeze. If not, I
Mark (see I remembered your name), where are we on this patch? It needs
docs and include has to be redone. Should I remove the include part of
the patch, add docs, and apply it?
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where are
Where are we on this?
That's a good question.
Tom doesn't like the syntax of include and there are a couple bugs he is
concered it.
I'm pretty agnostic about the syntax, but I wouldn't get overly worried
about the metaphor presented either.
include='...' doesn't bother me at all, but some
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where are we on this?
That's a good question.
Tom doesn't like the syntax of include and there are a couple bugs he is
concered it.
I'm pretty agnostic about the syntax, but I wouldn't get overly worried
about the metaphor presented either.
include='...'
Tom doesn't like the syntax of include
I said more than once that I didn't care about the syntax; it's the
implementation I was objecting to.
However, given that we are going to push it into guc-file.l, it'll
be easier all around if we choose a syntax that doesn't look exactly
like a variable
Where are we on this?
---
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One interesting idea would be for SET include to work like this:
SET include '/var/run/xx'
Notice there is no equals here. This
