Thread: Re: new psql \d command
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes: > It might be a bit risky getting pg_dump to use it though? I definitely don't want pg_dump using the pretty-print stuff ;-). I'm neutral on whether to use it in psql's \d commands. regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes: > > It might be a bit risky getting pg_dump to use it though? > > I definitely don't want pg_dump using the pretty-print stuff ;-). > I'm neutral on whether to use it in psql's \d commands. I thought the pretty-printing stuff was designed specifically for psql \d and third-party apps like pgadmin. Let's face it, the non-pretty-printing output is "pretty" ugly, and pretty-printing will improve that. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
Bruce Momjian wrote: >Tom Lane wrote: > > >>Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes: >> >> >>>It might be a bit risky getting pg_dump to use it though? >>> >>> >>I definitely don't want pg_dump using the pretty-print stuff ;-). >>I'm neutral on whether to use it in psql's \d commands. >> >> > >I thought the pretty-printing stuff was designed specifically for psql >\d and third-party apps like pgadmin. > Yes it was, but it can be meaningful for pg_dump too. The pretty-print stuff will inflate the dump with many spaces which doesn't make any sense with formats not meant to be read by humans, (--format=c), but --format=p output might well be used for user editing. So IMHO an option to enable pretty-dump can be useful. Regards, Andreas