Re: [BUGS] More SSL questions..

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > What about the *.txt extension?  Do we want that or remove it?  I would
> > prefer its removal.
>
> I agreed with the point about making those files easily editable.
> I'm not dead set on it, but I don't see what we gain by not having
> the .txt there --- we still have to document a different file name
> and different location than is the case on Unix.

My feeling is that the *.txt is actually misleading because people will
think of it as a file full of freeform text (paragraphs) and not a
configuration file.

Does anyone know of a configuration file that uses *.txt?  I don't.

Perhaps there is another extension that is good for Win32 but i don't
think *.txt is it.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073