Re: SHOW TABLES

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rob Wultsch <wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>, "jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SHOW TABLES
Date: 2010-07-18 03:41:14
Message-ID: AANLkTi=Vmt1xTDnFUyiF0m0BO2cst=YCLicqZTH0qt=U@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> I'd like to be able to list comments on objects of a particular type.
>> And, yeah, I'd like to be able to list all the aggregates that take a
>> numeric argument, or all the functions that take, say, an argument of
>> type internal.  Right now, this is an ENORMOUS pain in the neck.  I
>> usually end up running psql -c '<some backslash command>' |  grep |
>> awk ... or something like that.  I have no idea what Windows users do.
>>  I'm sure it's possible to write a query to do it, but it's not
>> anything approaching easy.  All of this talk about backslash commands
>> being powerful rings totally hollow for me.  For ordinary, day to day
>> tasks like listing all my tables, or looking at the details of a
>> particular table, they're great.  I use them all the time and would
>> still use them even if some other syntax were available.  But there is
>> no reasonable way to pass options to them, and that to me is a pretty
>> major drawback.
>
> I am concerned that implementing a command syntax to show complex output
> like above effectively means re-implementing a subset of SQL, and that
> subset will never be as flexible.

That's a reasonable concern, but I don't have a better idea. Do you?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alex Hunsaker 2010-07-18 04:30:20 Re: Functional dependencies and GROUP BY
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2010-07-18 03:14:20 Re: SHOW TABLES