On 17.06.22 21:33, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
On 17.06.22 19:52, Josh Soref wrote:
ok, are they worth fixing?
That would require renaming either the output files or the input files,
and people would really not like either one.
Agreed that renaming those files is not desirabl
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 17.06.22 19:52, Josh Soref wrote:
>> ok, are they worth fixing?
> That would require renaming either the output files or the input files,
> and people would really not like either one.
Agreed that renaming those files is not desirable, but the presented
patch was o
On 17.06.22 19:52, Josh Soref wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I think it was never a goal to absolutely make them match all the time,
so a lot of the differences might be accidental.
ok, are they worth fixing?
That would require renaming either the output files or the input files,
and peopl
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I think it was never a goal to absolutely make them match all the time,
> so a lot of the differences might be accidental.
ok, are they worth fixing? It seems like it'd make sense for files to
properly reference other files so that humans don't have to go looking
for fil
On 16.06.22 19:30, Josh Soref wrote:
I'm reading the docs (I'm trying to figure out some replication
things) and I was wondering why the file references [1] don't match
the file names.
I think it was never a goal to absolutely make them match all the time,
so a lot of the differences might be
Hi,
I'm reading the docs (I'm trying to figure out some replication
things) and I was wondering why the file references [1] don't match
the file names.
Most of the inconsistent items are for `obsolete-*` where the filename
is actually `appendix-obsolete-*`. But, oddly, afaict, they were
introduced
