On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Magnus Hagander
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Dean Rasheed
> wrote:
>
>> On 28 October 2017 at 13:46, Pavel Stehule
>> 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.
>
+1
I agree, that would look better, especially with "standard patterns" which
could help with too long to type each time SQL snippets.
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
