Re: [HACKERS] a short trip in the wayback machine
On Sunday 09 August 2009 03:53:55 Andrew Dunstan wrote: the documentation of psql's --no-readline option was removed (psql-ref.sgml v 1.23). I think this was a mistake and it should be restored :-) Does that option have a point? Should the option be removed, perhaps? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] a short trip in the wayback machine
Peter Eisentraut wrote: On Sunday 09 August 2009 03:53:55 Andrew Dunstan wrote: the documentation of psql's --no-readline option was removed (psql-ref.sgml v 1.23). I think this was a mistake and it should be restored :-) Does that option have a point? Should the option be removed, perhaps? It has at least one prominent user - http://people.planetpostgresql.org/andrew/index.php?/archives/31-A-tiny-psql-tip.html#comments ;-) cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] a short trip in the wayback machine
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: the documentation of psql's --no-readline option was removed (psql-ref.sgml v 1.23). I think this was a mistake and it should be restored :-) I'm quite never sure how far back to take pure docs patches, though. Should I just fix HEAD, or HEAD plus 8.4, or all the way back to 7.4? Clearly a mistake. If you have the energy to patch it all the way back, please do. 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
Re: [HACKERS] a short trip in the wayback machine
On Sunday 09 August 2009 17:57:23 Andrew Dunstan wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: On Sunday 09 August 2009 03:53:55 Andrew Dunstan wrote: the documentation of psql's --no-readline option was removed (psql-ref.sgml v 1.23). I think this was a mistake and it should be restored :-) Does that option have a point? Should the option be removed, perhaps? It has at least one prominent user - http://people.planetpostgresql.org/andrew/index.php?/archives/31-A-tiny-ps ql-tip.html#comments ;-) OK, if you re-document it, it may be useful to mention that as a use case. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] a short trip in the wayback machine
While following up a comment from Tom on my blog, I discovered that some 9 1/2 years ago in a patch bearing the comment: Fixed psql double quoting of SQL ids Fixed libpq printing functions the documentation of psql's --no-readline option was removed (psql-ref.sgml v 1.23). I think this was a mistake and it should be restored :-) I'm quite never sure how far back to take pure docs patches, though. Should I just fix HEAD, or HEAD plus 8.4, or all the way back to 7.4? cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
