I wrote: > Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes: >> Would an equivalent "PGWARNING" be something we are open to adding and >> back-patching?
> It's not real obvious how pl/r could solve this in a reliable way > otherwise, so adding that would be OK with me, but I wonder whether > back-patching is going to help you any. You'd still need to compile > against older headers I should think. So I'd suggest > (1) add PGWARNING in HEAD only
Concretely, maybe like the attached?
+1 from me.
I especially like the changes to the comments as it's more apparent what they should be used for.
