From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kirk Wolak <wolakk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: proposal: psql: show current user in prompt |
Date: | 2023-04-05 14:58:51 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRBb_6KNS8ak53kNk_0yrSG+qvT98Y5eLGcfp852kzmqiQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
st 5. 4. 2023 v 15:56 odesílatel Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> napsal:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 12:42 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> Basically, I want to reject this on the grounds that it's not
> >> useful enough to justify the overhead of marking the "role" GUC
> >> as GUC_REPORT.
>
> > I agree with that. I think we need some method for optionally
> > reporting values, so that stuff like this can be handled without
> > adding it to the wire protocol for everyone.
>
> It could probably be possible to provide some mechanism for setting
> GUC_REPORT on specific variables locally within sessions. I don't
> think this'd be much of a protocol-break problem, because clients
> should already be coded to deal gracefully with ParameterStatus messages
> for variables they don't know. However, connecting that up to something
> like a psql prompt feature would still be annoying. I doubt I'd want
> to go as far as having psql try to turn on GUC_REPORT automatically
> if it sees %N in the prompt ...
>
I agree with this analyze
Regards
Pavel
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-04-05 15:11:41 | Re: Temporary tables versus wraparound... again |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-04-05 14:45:12 | Re: meson documentation build open issues |