Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
Currently, psql --version prints something like
psql (PostgreSQL) 9.2beta1
contains support for command-line editing
I think the notice about readline is a leftover from the old days when
psql was often built without any readline support. Nowadays,
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 01:24:21AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Currently, psql --version prints something like
psql (PostgreSQL) 9.2beta1
contains support for command-line editing
I think this should be replaced with a notice about the actual library
used.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter
Excerpts from David Fetter's message of dom may 20 15:30:52 -0400 2012:
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 01:24:21AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Currently, psql --version prints something like
psql (PostgreSQL) 9.2beta1
contains support for command-line editing
I think this should be
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from David Fetter's message of dom may 20 15:30:52 -0400 2012:
I think this should be replaced with a notice about the actual library
used.
That was my thought as well, but is it possible to implement it?
And, more to the point,
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of dom may 20 23:04:59 -0400 2012:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from David Fetter's message of dom may 20 15:30:52 -0400 2012:
I think this should be replaced with a notice about the actual library
used.
That was my
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of dom may 20 23:04:59 -0400 2012:
And, more to the point, would it be more reliable than checking the
results of system-specific tools such as ldd?
If well implemented, my guess is that it would be. For
Currently, psql --version prints something like
psql (PostgreSQL) 9.2beta1
contains support for command-line editing
I think the notice about readline is a leftover from the old days when
psql was often built without any readline support. Nowadays, this looks
like an anomaly, and it doesn't
