On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:57:50 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also, having now looked at the proposed patch, it seems clear that it > isn't addressing the issue of quoting/escaping at all; so I wonder how > this can be considered to be a safely machine-readable format.
It's not a machine readable format. It is a simple display with more border lines. Just like "border 2" is like "border 1" with more border lines. I'm just following the progression. > In particular, the output seems to me to not even approximate the rules > laid down at > http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/user/rst/quickref.html And there is no reason that it should. > So, quite aside from the question of whether we care to support ReST, > my opinion is that this patch fails to do so, and a significantly more > invasive patch would be needed to do it. I suppose it is my fault for mentioning ReST. That was the reason I looked into this but that is not what the final proposal is. I too would argue against making a munged output just to match one formatting scheme. If I do a query and I need to modify it manually when I use it in *any* third party program that's my personal issue. If "border 3" happens to get me closer to my format that's great but it has to stand on its own merit. I think that this proopsal does. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers