Re: Proposal: adding a better description in psql command about large objects - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nathan Bossart
Subject Re: Proposal: adding a better description in psql command about large objects
Date
Msg-id 20220603152319.GA2627191@nathanxps13
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal: adding a better description in psql command about large objects  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 11:12:11AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> * How about "write large object to file" and "read large object from
> file"?  As it stands, if you are not totally sure which direction is
> export and which is import, this description teaches you little.

+1

> * While we're here, it seems like this whole group was placed at the
> end because of add-it-to-the-end-itis, not because that was the
> most logical place for it.  The other commands that interact with
> the server are mostly further up.  My first thought is to move it
> to just after the "Informational" group, but I'm not especially
> set on that.  Making it not-last might make it harder to get away
> with the inconsistent indentation, though.

Another option could be to move it after the "Input/Output" section so that
it's closer to some other commands that involve files.  I can't say I have
a strong opinion about whether/where to move it, though.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal: adding a better description in psql command about large objects
Next
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: Re: should check interrupts in BuildRelationExtStatistics ?