Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > What about the *.txt extension? Do we want that or remove it? I would
> > prefer its removal.
>
> I agreed with the point about making those files easily editable.
> I'm not dead set on it, but I don't see what we gain by not having
> the .txt there --- we still have to document a different file name
> and different location than is the case on Unix.
My feeling is that the *.txt is actually misleading because people will
think of it as a file full of freeform text (paragraphs) and not a
configuration file.
Does anyone know of a configuration file that uses *.txt? I don't.
Perhaps there is another extension that is good for Win32 but i don't
think *.txt is it.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
