"Neil Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 22:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Does that look better or worse to you?
> I agree the patch's format is a bit off. What about
>     "mi" btree (i),  tablespace "testspace"
> "PRIMARY KEY" is currently separated from the rest of the index
> description via a comma -- although on the other hand the column list
> isn't preceded by a comma. Perhaps this whole format should be
> rethought?

yes, you are right, both forms you showed up are better than mine - the
reason I use that format is because add_tablespace_footer() prints a
"Tablespace: \"tablespace_name\"" in the PQExpBufferData. I could hack the
content in the buffer to make it looks better. Is this acceptable?


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to