I wrote:
> Hmm, I wonder how useful that's really going to be, considering
> that trigger names aren't unique across tables. Wouldn't it
> need to be more like "\et table-name trigger-name"?
Different line of thought: \et seems awfully single-purpose.
Perhaps we should think more of "\st table-name trigger-name"
(show trigger), which perhaps could print something along the
lines of
CREATE TRIGGER after_ins_stmt_trig AFTER INSERT ON main_table
FOR EACH STATEMENT EXECUTE FUNCTION trigger_func('after_ins_stmt');
CREATE FUNCTION public.trigger_func()
RETURNS trigger
... the rest like \sf for the trigger function
If you indeed want to edit the function, it's a quick copy-and-paste
from here. But if you just want to see the trigger definition,
this is more wieldy than looking at the whole "\d table-name"
output. Also we have less of an overloading problem with the
command name.
I agree that the argument for \et or \etf fails. Simply on the one to many issues.
And I agree that a more consistent approach is best.
Having just cleaned up 158 Triggers/Trigger Functions... Just having \eft <TAB> work would be nice.
Which would solve my problem of quickly getting the tables triggers and reviewing the code.
I like the idea of adding to the \s* options. As in "show".
but the "t" is very common (table, trigger, type). I think \st \str \sty could work, but this is the first place where we would be doing this?
Honestly I think \st is "missing", especially to throw something in dbfiddle or another tool.
And if we drop "trigger" from this, then \st and \sT where T would be for Types as elsewhere.
Now that feels more consistent?
So, currently thinking:
1) lets get \ef? <TAB> working
2) Discuss: \st \sT for outputting Table and Type Creation DDL...
Something is telling me that #2 (\st) might be a can of worms, since it seems so obviously "missing"?
regards, tom lane
I appreciate the feedback!
