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
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 |