From: | "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Bernd Helmle" <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Show INHERIT in \du |
Date: | 2008-03-21 03:45:50 |
Message-ID: | 37ed240d0803202045y4142191fv15231bff7c21e311@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On 21/03/2008, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> The code is now set up so that it can pass an entire field value
> through gettext(), but if gettext recognizes the strings "foo" and
> "bar" that doesn't mean it will do anything useful with "foo\nbar",
> which is what this patch would require.
>
Ouch!
> I suspect that to solve this in a non-kluge fashion we'd need to make
> \du pull over the plain boolean and integer values, then build a new
> PGresult data structure on its own. Ugh. (Actually, without any
> support from libpq for building PGresults, it's hard to imagine doing
> that in a way that wouldn't be a kluge itself.)
>
> Or we could go back to the drawing board on what the output ought to
> look like.
>
We can't just build the output table by hand like
describeOneTableDetails does? Admittedly it's kludgy, but it's not an
unprecedented kludge.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-03-21 03:51:45 | Re: [PATCHES] Show INHERIT in \du |
Previous Message | Brendan Jurd | 2008-03-21 03:02:39 | Re: [PATCHES] [GENERAL] Empty arrays with ARRAY[] |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-03-21 03:51:45 | Re: [PATCHES] Show INHERIT in \du |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-03-21 03:24:45 | Re: Fix pgstatindex using for large indexes |