On 29/12/2019 23:10, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 29/12/2019 17:31, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 2:02 PM Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>> I'm all for this (and even suggested it during the IRC conversation that
>>>> prompted this patch). It's rife with bikeshedding, though. My original
>>>> proposal was to use '&' and Andrew Gierth would have used ':'.
>>> I think this is a good proposal regardless of which character we
>>> decide to use. My order of preference from highest-to-lowest would
>>> probably be :*&, but maybe that's just because I'm reading this on
>>> Sunday rather than on Tuesday.
>> I don't have any particular objection to '&' if people prefer that.
>
> I wrote the patch so I got to decide. :-) I will also volunteer to do
> the grunt work of changing the symbol if consensus wants that, though.
>
>
> It turns out that my original patch didn't really change, all the meat
> is in the keywords patch. The superuser patch is to be applied on top
> of the keywords patch.
>
I missed a few places in the tap tests. New keywords patch attached,
superuser patch unchanged.
--
Vik Fearing
