Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?

On 4/6/22 2:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
>> No as sure about \show though. That seems like it could be confused with
>> showing other stuff. Maybe consistent with \sf[+] and \sv[+] we could
>> add \sc[+]?
>
> Hmm ... my first reaction to that was "no, it should be \sp for
> 'parameter'". But with the neighboring \sf for 'function', it'd
> be easy to think that maybe 'p' means 'procedure'.
>
> I do agree that \show might be a bad choice, the reason being that
> the adjacent \set command is for psql variables not GUCs; if we
> had a \show I'd sort of expect it to be a variant spelling of
> "\echo :variable".
>
> "\sc" isn't awful perhaps.
>
> Ah, naming ... the hardest problem in computer science.

(but the easiest thing to have an opinion on ;)

+1 on the feature proposal.

I am a bit torn between "\dcp" (or \dsetting / \dconfig? we don't
necessarily need for it to be super short) and "\sc". Certainly with
pattern matching the interface for the "\d" commands would fit that
pattern. "\sc" would make sense for a thorough introspection of what is
in the GUC. That said, we get that with SHOW today.

So I'm leaning towards something in the "\d" family.

Thanks,

Jonathan