From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: View definition formatting |
Date: | 2003-04-01 19:58:52 |
Message-ID: | 2723.1049227132@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgadmin-hackers pgsql-hackers |
Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
> On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 14:18, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Perhaps we could make pg_get_ruledef and friends try to prettyprint
>> their output a little better, instead of duplicating such logic in
>> various clients (which couldn't do nearly as well at it anyway without
>> re-parsing the string :-().
> Could we turn the prettyprint incantation into a user callable function?
I don't think it's reasonable to implement the prettyprint as a separate
function, if that's what you mean. It would have to re-parse the string
which is exactly what I wanted to avoid. pg_get_ruledef itself already
knows what the statement structure is, and would need very little more
logic to do fairly reasonable pretty-printing.
We could make variants of pg_get_ruledef etc. that pretty-print,
while leaving the existing behavior alone, I suppose.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2003-04-01 20:21:20 | Re: View definition formatting |
Previous Message | Andreas Pflug | 2003-04-01 19:54:05 | Re: pgadmin3 query tools |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Moritz Sinn | 2003-04-01 20:06:36 | mariposa |
Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2003-04-01 19:49:50 | Re: View definition formatting |