| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matthijs van der Vleuten <matthijs(at)zr40(dot)nl>, Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>, PostgreSQL hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: psql: add \pset true/false |
| Date: | 2015-11-12 16:51:28 |
| Message-ID: | 5644C390.6040804@2ndquadrant.fr |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/12/2015 05:41 PM, Matthijs van der Vleuten wrote:
>
>> On 12 Nov 2015, at 14:21, Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 at 00:51 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us <mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>> wrote:
>> The really key argument that hasn't been addressed here is why does such
>> a behavior belong in psql, rather than elsewhere? Surely legibility
>> problems aren't unique to psql users. Moreover, there are exactly
>> parallel facilities for other datatypes on the server side: think
>> DateStyle or bytea_output. So if you were trying to follow precedent
>> rather than invent a kluge, you'd have submitted a patch to create a GUC
>> that changes the output of boolout().
>>
>> I find Tom's analogy to datestyle and bytea_output convincing.
>>
>> +1 for a GUC that changes the behaviour of boolout.
>
> -1 for changing boolout(). It will break anything that receives boolean values from the server. How a client is going to display values (of any type) is logic that should belong in the client, not in the protocol.
I fully agree. This is something I feel should happen in the client.
--
Vik Fearing +33 6 46 75 15 36
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | dinesh kumar | 2015-11-12 16:58:18 | Re: Proposing COPY .. WITH PERMISSIVE |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2015-11-12 16:44:40 | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |