From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Counting lines correctly in psql help displays |
Date: | 2015-09-09 14:27:50 |
Message-ID: | 30394.1441808870@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 09/05/2015 12:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Or we could just give up and replace the counts by INT_MAX, forcing use
>> of the pager unless you've turned it off. All of those outputs are long
>> enough now that it's hard to believe there are any common screen layouts
>> where you don't end up invoking the pager anyway. (usage() is 60 lines,
>> the others are more.) This is probably the reason why we've seldom
>> noticed they're wrong --- it barely matters anymore.
>>
>> One way or the other I think it's past time to get out of the business
>> of maintaining these counts. I'm willing to do the work of using a
>> PQExpBuffer if people think it's worth the trouble to have an accurate
>> count, but it may not be worth the code space.
> I'm not terribly happy about the INT_MAX idea. Counting lines in a
> PGExpBuffer seems OK. That way we could honor pager_min_lines, I hope.
TBH, I'm not detecting enough concern about this issue to make it worth
doing more than replacing the counts by INT_MAX. Nobody has stepped up
and said "yeah, my terminal window is 100 lines high and I'll be really
annoyed if \? invokes the pager unnecessarily". I plan to just do the
three-line fix and move on.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-09-09 14:35:21 | Re: Re: [HACKERS] 答复:[HACKERS] 答复:[HACKERS] about fsync in CLOG buffer write |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-09-09 14:27:06 | Re: [HACKERS] 答复:[HACKERS] 答复:[HACKERS] about fsync in CLOG buffer write |