From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, decibel <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pretty print viewdefs |
Date: | 2009-08-27 18:04:00 |
Message-ID: | 4A96CA90.80002@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>> I am confused.
>>
>
>
>> The original two line addition was already in effect driven by the
>> PRETTY_INDENT flag, because the appendContextKeyword call would be
>> effectively a no-op if that flag wasn't on. But apparently some people
>> don't want each column on a separate line, as I do, even when it's
>> pretty printed, so, since that's what I want, I provided for it in a
>> separate function, but I made the code take account of the cases you and
>> Greg mentioned, where it already begins a new line for the column def.
>>
>
> What I was imagining was simply providing an additional pretty-print
> flag that gives the alternatives of the current behavior, or the patch
> you originally proposed that adds newlines between targetlist items all
> the time. I don't think that you should complicate the behavior any
> more than that.
>
> Personally I would prefer the original patch to this one.
>
>
>
OK, and how are we going to set that flag? Like I did, with a separate
function?
I assume you are in effect saying you don't mind if there is an
occasional blank line in the output.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-08-27 18:08:28 | Re: hot standby - merged up to CVS HEAD |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-08-27 17:59:01 | Re: clang's static checker report. |