"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:57:50 -0400 > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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. Well, if you can't just paste your output into ReST without having to hand-munge it afterwards, then ISTM the argument for having this additional bit of complexity in our printing routines really falls flat. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers