On 28 October 2017 at 13:46, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.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.
