Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Since we were breaking our usual rule by re-indenting the 8.1 branch,
> > I took the time to eyeball the whole "cvs diff" for changes that weren't
> > just comment block fixes. I found a few things that need attention.
> >
> > This change is disturbing f
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > And what happened here?
>
> I saw this one to and was stumped at the cause. We have other 'typedef
> enum' lines in the code which were not mangled, just this one. Again,
> needs research.
>
> > Index: src/interfaces/libpq/libpq-fe.h
> > ***
> > *** 35,41 **
Tom Lane wrote:
> Since we were breaking our usual rule by re-indenting the 8.1 branch,
> I took the time to eyeball the whole "cvs diff" for changes that weren't
> just comment block fixes. I found a few things that need attention.
>
> This change is disturbing first because it seems completely
