| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, decibel <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pretty print viewdefs |
| Date: | 2009-08-27 18:17:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20874.1251397042@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> OK, and how are we going to set that flag? Like I did, with a separate
> function?
I would be inclined to invent a variant of pg_get_viewdef with an
additional parameter rather than choosing a new function name, but
otherwise yeah. Or we could decide this isn't worth all the
trouble and just go back to your original patch. By the time you
get done with all the documentation and client-side hacking that
would be required, this patch is going to be a lot larger than it
seems worth.
> I assume you are in effect saying you don't mind if there is an
> occasional blank line in the output.
What blank line? I would expect prettyprinting of expressions to
sometimes insert an embedded newline, but not one at the beginning
or end. Do you have a counterexample?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-08-27 18:37:02 | Re: pretty print viewdefs |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-08-27 18:08:28 | Re: hot standby - merged up to CVS HEAD |