Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> What was the resolution of this? Can we make relative -L work or do we
> add error checks for relative -L paths?
We fixed the problem that was requiring Josh to use -L. I think -L is a
wizard's switch and need not be user-friendly, so I feel no need to do
either of the above.
regards, tom lane
