Re: psql: display of object comments

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: psql: display of object comments
Date: 2011-08-08 20:34:57
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZw5kU8WAXjbe3OaZQOi-nYfzFgkxv9tx1NtNdM9vN2yQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I guess my vote is to make the SQL/MED stuff show the description only
>> in verbose mode, and always at the end; and revise what we did with
>> \dL to put the description at the end even in verbose mode.
>
> Yeah, that sounds fine to me. I've revised the residual patch to do
> so, as well as incorporated your earlier suggestion about having \dD
> and \dc only display descriptions in verbose-mode.
>
> I did more testing, and found and fixed some brokenness related to
> d.objsubid I had introduced into the listConversions() query, as well
> as improved the version checking in objectDescription(). Updated patch
> attached.

OK, I've now committed most of this, with some additions to the
documentation. Remaining bits attached.

I am a bit confused as to why we have both \det and \dE. They seem
redundant. Shouldn't we rip one of those out? IMHO, \det should be
the one to go, as it could be useful to do, e.g. \dtvE, which isn't
going to work with the \det syntax.

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

Attachment Content-Type Size
describe_comments.v5.patch application/octet-stream 11.4 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Kupershmidt 2011-08-08 22:01:24 Re: psql: display of object comments
Previous Message Florian Pflug 2011-08-08 19:43:01 Re: WIP fix proposal for bug #6123