On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> "Marko Tiikkaja" <pgm...@joh.to> writes:
> > Here's the third version of this patch, hopefully this time without any
> > problems.  I looked through the patch and it looked OK, but I did that
> > last time too so I wouldn't trust myself on that one.
> Applied with corrections.
> The xml expected output was still wrong - to do that part right, you
> need to update xml.out with an xml-enabled build and xml_1.out with a
> non-xml-enabled build.
> Also, it seemed to me that the patch didn't go far enough, in that it
> only touched pg_get_viewdef and not the sister functions.  pg_dump would
> certainly want pg_get_ruledef to have the same behavior, and in general
> the documentation seems to me to be clear that all these functions have
> similar pretty-print-vs-not behavior.  As committed, the pretty_bool
> argument only affects PRETTY_PAREN processing for all of them.
> I also went ahead and set the default wrap column to zero rather than
> the former 79, since it seemed clear that people like that behavior
> better.
>                         regards, tom lane
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Was this ever committed into core? Apologies, I'm not very familiar with
looking through the commit history of the source code and I don't see
anything about this option or pretty-print outputs in the pg_dump/restore
docs for 9.3. Had someone asking me about this feature for pg_extractor


Keith Fiske
Database Administrator
OmniTI Computer Consulting, Inc.

Reply via email to