Re: Problem with displaying "wide" tables in psql - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Emre Hasegeli
Subject Re: Problem with displaying "wide" tables in psql
Date
Msg-id CAE2gYzz6+ck+7CvswT1a5A7TqbN=AwCWwpW+gMLR2oaBxH51dg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Problem with displaying "wide" tables in psql  (Sergey Muraviov <sergey.k.muraviov@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Problem with displaying "wide" tables in psql  (Sergey Muraviov <sergey.k.muraviov@gmail.com>)
Re: Problem with displaying "wide" tables in psql  (Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

This is my review about 3th version of the patch. It is an useful
improvement in my opinion. It worked well on my environment.

2013-12-11 17:43:06, Sergey Muraviov <sergey.k.muraviov@gmail.com>:
> It works in expanded mode when either format option is set to wrapped
> (\pset format wrapped), or we have no pager, or pager doesn't chop long
> lines (so you can still use the trick).

I do not like this logic on the IsWrappingNeeded function. It does not
seems right to check the environment variables for less. It would be hard
to explain this behavior to the users. It is better to make this only
the behavior of the wrapped format in expanded mode, in my opinion.

>                               {
>                                       if (opt_border < 2)
>                                               fprintf(fout, "%s\n", dlineptr[line_count].ptr);
>                                       else
>                                               fprintf(fout, "%-s%*s %s\n", dlineptr[line_count].ptr,
>                                                               dwidth - dlineptr[line_count].width, "",
>                                                               dformat->rightvrule);
>                               }

Is it necessary to keep this old print line code? It seems to me the new
code works well on (dlineptr[line_count].width <= dwidth) condition.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Memory ordering issue in LWLockRelease, WakeupWaiters, WALInsertSlotRelease