Re: psql: Add leakproof field to \dAo+ meta-command results

From: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Erik Wienhold <ewie(at)ewie(dot)name>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: psql: Add leakproof field to \dAo+ meta-command results
Date: 2024-11-15 17:26:08
Message-ID: CAEZATCU_6449UZrrQTkMTR4htaOGhcD9xuE8fMnx6OMPESnYqw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 at 09:55, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>
> I'll fixed the patch to add leakproof info to \do+ results, but is it worth
> leaving this info in \dAo+ results, too?
>

I suppose that might still be useful in some contexts.

Looking through the complete list of psql meta-commands, "leakproof"
could plausibly be added to the output of each of the following:

\dAo+
\dC+
\df+
\do+

> > I notice that this patch spells "leakproof" with a hyphen. IMO
> > leakproof should not have a hyphen -- at least, that's how I naturally
> > spell it, and I think that's more common, and it matches the SQL
> > syntax.
>
> OK, I'll fix it to use "leakproof" without a hyphen.
>
> > We haven't been consistent about that in the docs and code comments so
> > far though, so I think we should make a decision, and then standardise
> > on whatever people decide.
>
> I am not a native English speaker, but if this is natural spelling in
> English, I wonder we can replace all of them to leakproof without a hyphen.
>

Yes, I think we should do that (in a separate patch).

Regards,
Dean

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2024-11-15 17:36:54 Re: Improve error messages for database object stats manipulation functions during recovery
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2024-11-15 17:08:43 Re: Remove a unnecessary backslash in CopyFrom