On Saturday, July 7, 2018, Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 27.05.18 05:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Vianello, Daniel A" writes:
> >>> Uh, why would we list \ir before the simpler \i?
> >
> >> So that the request is to merge \ir into the \i section (not before \i
> but
On 27.05.18 05:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Vianello, Daniel A" writes:
>>> Uh, why would we list \ir before the simpler \i?
>
>> So that the request is to merge \ir into the \i section (not before \i but
>> part of that discusstion) rather than being separated by the comparatively
>> longer section
"Vianello, Daniel A" writes:
>> Uh, why would we list \ir before the simpler \i?
> So that the request is to merge \ir into the \i section (not before \i but
> part of that discusstion) rather than being separated by the comparatively
> longer section for \if
It was, in fact, like that initia
> Uh, why would we list \ir before the simpler \i?
I believe the OP was complaining that the current order is:
\i or \include filename
(text)
\if expression
\elif expression
\else
\endif
(longer text)
\ir or \include_relative filename
(text)
and that before it was:
\i or
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 02:25:28PM +, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/app-psql.html
> Description:
>
> While I get that we want alphabetical order an exception for \i and \ir
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/app-psql.html
Description:
While I get that we want alphabetical order an exception for \i and \ir
seems warranted; or maybe make \ir part of the \i meta command description -
\i[r]
