| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: new border setting in psql |
| Date: | 2009-01-12 13:27:10 |
| Message-ID: | 28016.1231766830@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> My vote goes for 1.
> I wonder why you think it's impossible. Is it because you must scan
> the whole table before being able to print any of it? (For example to
> add extra alignment for the escaping backslashes in a way that doesn't
> render it invalid.) Note that psql already does that in aligned mode,
> to determine the wide of the columns.
Hmm. If RST is really that brain-damaged, the problem here is that it's
going to take a very large patch to make it work. It's not going to be
a "border" option but a separate output mode like latex or html. And
then we have to get into the discussion of whether there's really enough
demand for this to justify carrying such a large chunk of code.
In any case, my vote is for either 0 or 1; I'm unimpressed by anything
that emits RST-except-we-skipped-all-the-hard-parts.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-12 13:32:38 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-01-12 13:26:48 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |