From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Daniel Verite" <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: \crosstabview fixes |
Date: | 2016-04-13 20:39:40 |
Message-ID: | 24623.1460579980@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Daniel Verite" <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org> writes:
> To avoid the confusion between "2:4" and "2":"4" or 2:4,
> and the ambiguity with a possibly existing "2:4" column,
> maybe we should abandon this syntax and require the optional
> scolH to be on its own at the end of the command.
That would be OK with me; it's certainly less of a hack than what's
there now. (I went back and forth about how much effort to put into
dealing with the colon syntax; I think the version I have in my patch
would be all right, but it's not perfect.)
> The simplified invocation of the command would be
> \crosstabview colV colH colD [scolH]
> (without any default, just scolH being optional):
> Or if it's preferrable to have colH just near scolH:
> \crosstabview colD colV colH [scolH]
Uh, why not
\crosstabview [ colV colH [ colD [ scolH ]]]
I see no particular reason that the existing abbreviation styles aren't
good. In any case, forcing colD to be specified is kind of annoying ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-04-13 20:41:47 | Re: \crosstabview fixes |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-04-13 20:35:45 | Re: [patch] \crosstabview documentation |