| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Chuck McDevitt <cmcdevitt(at)greenplum(dot)com>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Should libedit be preferred to |
| Date: | 2005-11-23 04:04:16 |
| Message-ID: | 10099.1132718656@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> If we are going to move toward libedit then libedit should be included
> in core.
We already do support libedit; support does not mean "include", for
either readline or libedit.
I think it'd be reasonable to provide a configure option to control
selection of libedit or readline on platforms where both are (or
appear to be) available. I'm not excited about changing the default
behavior, though, especially not on the grounds that "IBM just broke
readline on AIX and therefore we should deprecate readline everywhere",
which appears to be the reasoning offered so far.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-11-23 04:16:01 | Re: Practical error logging for very large COPY statements |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-23 03:55:01 | Re: syntax extension for unsupported JOINs coming from a binary only (unmodifyable) program |