Re: View definition formatting

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

In response to

Browse pgadmin-hackers by date

  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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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