| From: | "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "kenneth d'souza" <kd_souza(at)hotmail(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Reference by output in : \d <table_name> |
| Date: | 2008-04-12 06:49:12 |
| Message-ID: | 37ed240d0804112349g79c07b56p7d68d4e219ab72c7@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 3:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "kenneth d'souza" <kd_souza(at)hotmail(dot)com> writes:
> > With reference to the post http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2008-02/msg00104.phpand as stated by -hackers and -patchers, I am submitting the diff -c output as an attachment. Thanks, Kenneth
>
> Applied with some revisions.
>
While working on my printTable patch, I noticed that this patch only
has an indent of two spaces for incoming foreign keys, while all the
other table footers have an indent of four spaces.
Was this deliberate? And if so, why the change in indentation for
this particular listing?
Cheers,
BJ
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brendan Jurd | 2008-04-12 08:12:44 | Re: printTable API (was: Show INHERIT in \du) |
| Previous Message | Andrew Chernow | 2008-04-11 23:30:45 | Re: libpq Win32 Mutex performance patch |