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

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Yes, it looks like the precedent is to have an fprintf() per command. I
> still think the indentation needs some adjustment for readability. In the
> attached, I've lined up all the large object commands. This is offset from
> most other commands, but IMO this is far easier to read, and something
> similar was done for the operator class/family commands. Thoughts?

Generally +1 here. The other style that is used in some places is to
put the description on a separate line, but given that we're setting
the indent for a whole command group I think this looks better.

A couple of other random thoughts:

* 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.

* 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.

regards, tom lane