>> Hmmm. This would mean much more changes than the pretty trivial patch I
>> submitted
>
> FWIW, I find that patch really ugly. Adding the filler's with in a
> printf, after the actual DDL declaration. Without so much as a
> comment. Brr.
Indeed. I'm not too proud of that very point either:-) You are right that
it deserves at the minimum a clear comment. To put the varying size in the
DDL string means vsprintf and splitting the query building some more,
which I do not find desirable.
> [...]
> Well, it's something more generic, because it allows you do do more...
Apart from I do not need it (at least right now), and that it is more
work, my opinion is that it would be rejected. Not a strong insentive to
spend time in that direction.
--
Fabien.
