[PATCHES] Have psql display names and OUT/INOUT in \df output

2006-07-15 Thread David Fetter
Folks, This patch makes psql's \df display functions with the names of parameters and OUT/INOUT if appropriate. Should there be a regression test for this? A doc patch? Cheers, D -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778AIM: dfetter666

[PATCHES] PostmasterHandl_patch of win32

2006-07-15 Thread Hiroshi Saito
Hi Bruce-san. Uga..., include is removed and it is out of order. pmsignal.c: In function `PostmasterIsAlive': pmsignal.c:121: error: `PostmasterHandle' undeclared (first use in this function) pmsignal.c:121: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once pmsignal.c:121: error: for

Re: [PATCHES] Have psql display names and OUT/INOUT in \df output

2006-07-15 Thread Andrew Dunstan
David Fetter wrote: Folks, This patch makes psql's \df display functions with the names of parameters and OUT/INOUT if appropriate. Should there be a regression test for this? A doc patch? Regression tests are for server functionality, generally. Possibly docs should be patched. cheers

Re: [PATCHES] PostmasterHandl_patch of win32

2006-07-15 Thread Tom Lane
"Hiroshi Saito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Probably, this application will be required. This seems very messy. The correct fix is just to put back the #include line, no? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2:

Re: [PATCHES] PostmasterHandl_patch of win32

2006-07-15 Thread Hiroshi Saito
From: "Tom Lane" "Hiroshi Saito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Probably, this application will be required. This seems very messy. The correct fix is just to put back the #include line, no? @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ #include #include "miscadmin.h" +#include "postmaster/postmaster.h" #include "stor

Re: [PATCHES] Have psql display names and OUT/INOUT in \df output

2006-07-15 Thread David Fetter
On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 04:42:50PM -0700, David Fetter wrote: > Folks, > > This patch makes psql's \df display functions with the names of > parameters and OUT/INOUT if appropriate. Should there be a > regression test for this? A doc patch? As this doesn't change any documented behavior, it doe