On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 16:47 -0800, Richard Troy wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> > Funny no one has yet to offer a better alternative,
>
> -snip-
>
> I thought I did. The toolset can be updated to include a switch that give
> you what you want without destroying what exists today.
My complaint certainly wasn't at you, your suggestion was perfectly
valid.
>
> > I was quite serious, if someone can illustrate a more efficient way I
> > will gladly RTFM on that way and drop the whole thing.
>
> Short of that happening, my suggestion is; get coding, brother!
Plan on it :)
> If you
> want it and you can't convince everyone else your way is better, then it
> seems to me you have a great choice; implement it yourself
Well of course not... we are hearding cats afterall. I would however
like to get a idea from the people who have said they would like such a
feature of what type of syntax they would like.
> and then share
> it with everyone else! ...Or, did you expect someone else to step in and
> do your coding for you? -smile-
I just pay people to do that when needed. ;)
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
