Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRA2aEY+SRjZ_WurB8512Etry3Arefv_L7fkpHW-ct3kkQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers


čt 7. 4. 2022 v 19:04 odesílatel David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> napsal:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 9:58 AM Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
On 4/7/22 12:37, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>>> On Apr 7, 2022, at 9:29 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I wouldn't
>>> fight too hard if people want to lengthen it to \dconfig for consistency
>>> with set_config().
>
>> I'd prefer \dconfig, but if the majority on this list view that as pedantically forcing them to type more, I'm not going to kick up a fuss about \dconf.
>
> Maybe I'm atypical, but I'm probably going to use tab completion
> either way, so it's not really more keystrokes.  The consistency
> point is a good one that I'd not considered before.

Yeah I had thought about \dconfig too -- +1 to that, although I am fine
with \dconf too.


\dconfig[+] gets my vote.  I was going to say "conf" just isn't common jargon to say or write; but the one place it is - file extensions - is relevant and common.  But still, I would go with the non-jargon form.

dconfig is better, because google can be confused - dconf is known project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dconf

The length is not too important when we have tab complete

Regards

Pavel


David J.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs?
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Mingw task for Cirrus CI