Re: proposal - psql - show longest tables

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I propose a few new commands
>>
>> \dts [N|size] ... show N largest tables | show tables larger than size
>> ordered by size
>> \dis [N|size] ... show N largest indexes | show indexes larger than
>> size ordered by size
>> \dtst [N|size] ... show N largest total size | show tables where total
>> size is larger than size ordered by total size
>> \dtr [N] ... show N largest tables (ordered by rows)

> I think our \d commands are in inscrutable morass of indecipherable
> gobbledygook as it is, and this is only one more step down the road to
> complete insanity. :-(

Indeed. At least in this particular design, there is no sane way to
tell the difference between this family of commands and the \dtisv
family --- which has completely different behavior, starting with what
it thinks the argument means. Even if you can come up with some
arguably logical rule for the code to use, users will never remember
which is which. In fact, the first three of those already have defined
meanings, and while the fourth does not AFAIR, the current psql code
nonetheless takes it, ignoring the "r".

Even if we thought the functionality was worth the trouble, which I
continue to doubt, this particular syntax proposal is a disaster.

regards, tom lane