On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:19:51 -0500 (EST) Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > Yep, that is my analysis as well. If you want a pretty ReST-like > output, that can be added later.
Not if you use "border 3" for full ReST. I see nothing but pushback later if you try to make "border 4" give less than "border 3." Anyway, we have gone around the circle again and are no further ahead. As I see it, the original proposal was a logical extension to the border settings, it was extremely low impact on the code and some people would have found it useful. Unfortunately I made the tactical error of mentioning ReST early on and now it won't be accepted unless it is 100% ReST safe which it probably can never be and if it came close it would give butt ugly output in cases where it didn't need to. I guess my better option now is to push for the output filter for psql as I posted. It's a much bigger change and my simple filter for my simple needs would be way more complicated but there doesn't seem to be any hope down this road. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain <da...@druid.net> | 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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
