Re: [HACKERS] Re: proposal - psql: possibility to specify sort for describe commands, when size is printed

From: Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: proposal - psql: possibility to specify sort for describe commands, when size is printed
Date: 2017-11-27 07:58:59
Message-ID: CAPpHfdtffj3aM4F+A-5ndCVU+8jxhcpSUB55JNwz5ia4_TK2=w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 28 October 2017 at 13:46, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>> > I though about Alexander proposal, and I am thinking so it can be
>> probably
>> > best if we respect psql design. I implemented two command suffixes
>> > (supported only when it has sense) "s" sorted by size and "d" as descent
>> >
>> > so list of tables can be sorted with commands:
>> >
>> > \dt+sd (in this case, the order is not strict), so command
>> > \dtsd+ is working too (same \disd+ or \di+sd)
>> >
>> > These two chars are acceptable. Same principle is used for \l command
>> >
>> > \lsd+ or \l+sd
>> >
>> > What do you think about it?
>> >
>>
>> I really hate that syntax. This is going to turn into an
>> incomprehensible mess, and isn't easily extended to support other
>> options.
>>
>
> +1. While useful in itself, I think it's definitely a dangerous pattern to
> go down, as it'll only get worse.
>
>
> I agree with people who have said they would prefer this to be
>> available as a per-command option rather than as a variable that you
>> have to set, but it needs a clearer syntax. I actually like Stephen's
>> idea of using a user-defined SQL snippet, because that's a familiar
>> syntax to people, and it avoids adding an ever-increasing number of
>> options to these commands. Instead, the syntax could simply be:
>>
>
> +1 here as well. And anybody who is actually going to need this level of
> control definitely will know SQL...
>
> And if one wants to save some "standard patterns", it should be doable to
> save the pattern itself in a variable and then use it with something like
> "\dt :mysort" and have it expand the normal way there.
>

+1
I agree, that would look better, especially with "standard patterns" which
could help with too long to type each time SQL snippets.

------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Khandekar 2017-11-27 08:28:57 Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key
Previous Message Alexander Korotkov 2017-11-27 07:47:32 Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017 : Patch for predicate locking in Gist index