Re: Proposal: adding a better description in psql command about large objects

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Thibaud W(dot)" <thibaud(dot)walkowiak(at)dalibo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal: adding a better description in psql command about large objects
Date: 2022-06-03 15:23:19
Message-ID: 20220603152319.GA2627191@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 11:12:11AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> * How about "write large object to file" and "read large object from
> file"? As it stands, if you are not totally sure which direction is
> export and which is import, this description teaches you little.

+1

> * While we're here, it seems like this whole group was placed at the
> end because of add-it-to-the-end-itis, not because that was the
> most logical place for it. The other commands that interact with
> the server are mostly further up. My first thought is to move it
> to just after the "Informational" group, but I'm not especially
> set on that. Making it not-last might make it harder to get away
> with the inconsistent indentation, though.

Another option could be to move it after the "Input/Output" section so that
it's closer to some other commands that involve files. I can't say I have
a strong opinion about whether/where to move it, though.

--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2022-06-03 15:28:37 Re: should check interrupts in BuildRelationExtStatistics ?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-06-03 15:12:11 Re: Proposal: adding a better description in psql command about large objects