Reece Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The RL_PROMPT_* markers are undocumented features of readline. The patch > I sent works fine with RL 4.2 and 4.3 on linux-x86. From the readline > changelogs, I deduced that these were added with 4.0 (ca. Feb 1999).
Hm. I don't recall whether we still pretend to support pre-4.0 readlines. The "undocumented" bit actually bothers me rather more. I guess what we can do is wrap the code in "ifdef RL_PROMPT_START_IGNORE" to keep from blowing up if it's not present. > Let's chop the #else clause and leave it at that. Agreed. > BTW, is there a coding style guide or pgsql-patch guide somewhere? Not really; so far we've gotten away with "do like you see established contributors doing". > For > example, are patches acceptable as attachments (as opposed to inline)? Doesn't matter. We ask for "diff -c" format (plain diff is unsafe if there have been any other changes in the files, and diff -u is harder to read, at least in the opinions of those who are likely to review PG patches). How you package it in your message is your choice. If you use a mail program that might munge whitespace or linebreaks then an attachment is probably the safest plan. > And, is it preferred to diff against cvs instead? If so, which branch? In general a diff against CVS HEAD will be the least pain to apply. In this particular case it won't matter much, since those files haven't changed recently. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster