Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
The input file could be simply line based. Attached is a simple
script that takes the input below and produces something resembling
what you suggested. It wouldn't be too hard to get it to produce
multiple output formats and dump the output to different files...
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 10:52:19AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Am Donnerstag, 16. Februar 2006 02:50 schrieb Tom Lane:
That's fine for users, but what new demands are you about to place on
developers? Does this require tools not already needed in order
Am Donnerstag, 16. Februar 2006 02:50 schrieb Tom Lane:
That's fine for users, but what new demands are you about to place on
developers? Does this require tools not already needed in order to
build from a CVS pull? (There's sure no xsltproc on this machine...)
It is to be expected that
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 02:36:01AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
We are currently maintaining information about configuration parameters
in at least three places: the documentation, guc.c, and
postgresql.conf.sample. I would like to generate these from a single
source. Computationally,
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Am Donnerstag, 16. Februar 2006 02:50 schrieb Tom Lane:
That's fine for users, but what new demands are you about to place on
developers? Does this require tools not already needed in order to
build from a CVS pull? (There's sure no xsltproc on this
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Am Donnerstag, 16. Februar 2006 02:50 schrieb Tom Lane:
The m4 idea seems attractive to me because that's already effectively
required as part of the autoconf infrastructure (and I think bison
uses it too these days).
That is true, but I'm afraid
We are currently maintaining information about configuration parameters
in at least three places: the documentation, guc.c, and
postgresql.conf.sample. I would like to generate these from a single
source. Computationally, this is not very challenging, it's just a bit
of work. I imagine as
