Reece Hart <reece@in-machina.com> writes:
> The RL_PROMPT_* markers are undocumented features of readline. The patch
> I sent works fine with RL 4.2 and 4.3 on linux-x86. From the readline
> changelogs, I deduced that these were added with 4.0 (ca. Feb 1999).
Hm. I don't recall whether we still pretend to support pre-4.0 readlines.
The "undocumented" bit actually bothers me rather more. I guess what we
can do is wrap the code in "ifdef RL_PROMPT_START_IGNORE" to keep from
blowing up if it's not present.
> Let's chop the #else clause and leave it at that.
Agreed.
> BTW, is there a coding style guide or pgsql-patch guide somewhere?
Not really; so far we've gotten away with "do like you see established
contributors doing".
> For
> example, are patches acceptable as attachments (as opposed to inline)?
Doesn't matter. We ask for "diff -c" format (plain diff is unsafe if
there have been any other changes in the files, and diff -u is harder to
read, at least in the opinions of those who are likely to review PG
patches). How you package it in your message is your choice. If you
use a mail program that might munge whitespace or linebreaks then an
attachment is probably the safest plan.
> And, is it preferred to diff against cvs instead? If so, which branch?
In general a diff against CVS HEAD will be the least pain to apply. In
this particular case it won't matter much, since those files haven't
changed recently.
regards, tom lane
