Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>> Hrm, I could have sworn that Tom had asked for the exact opposite in the
>> past, but either way is fine by me.
> Really? I don't remember that, but it's certainly possible.
I don't remember saying exactly that either. The main point is to
ensure the patch doesn't get mangled in transmission. I've seen people
screw it up both ways: inline is much more vulnerable to mailers
deciding to whack whitespace around, while attachments are vulnerable to
being encoded in all sorts of weird ways, some of which come out nicely
in the archives and some of which don't. I'm not in favor of gzipping
small patches that could perfectly well be left in readable form.
This particular patch looks fine here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-01/msg00845.php
so I'm thinking Stephen doesn't need to revisit his technique.
+1 for choosing something more mnemonic than "%o", btw.
regards, tom lane
