Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Redundant statements

From: Erwin Brandstetter <brandstetter(at)falter(dot)at>
To: guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info
Cc: pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Redundant statements
Date: 2010-04-29 15:28:09
Message-ID: 4BD9A589.7080201@falter.at (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgadmin-hackers
On 29.04.2010 15:21, guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info wrote:
> Sorry for not answering sooner.
>    

No problem, the thread is old, but I just posted that yesterday. :)


> Le 29/04/2010 14:15, Erwin Brandstetter a écrit :
>    
>> On 28.04.2010 19:16, brandstetter(at)falter(dot)at wrote:
>>      
>>> Aloha!
>>>
>>> I am testing Guillaume's version of pgadmin3.exe from Apr. 17.
>>>
>>> The fix below is included and it seems to fix the problem just fine.
>>> However, as a side effect (?) there is now a redundant statement for
>>> each and every column:
>>>      ALTER TABLE foo ALTER COLUMN bar SET STORAGE PLAIN;
>>> or
>>>      ALTER TABLE foo ALTER COLUMN baz SET STORAGE EXTENDED;
>>>
>>> I think those statements should only be included, if the storage type
>>> differs from the default setting - like "SET STATISTICS" is handled now.
>>> It is pretty noisy as it is now.
>>>        
> "SET STATISTICS" is not really handled this way. We had "SET STATISTICS"
> statement if the value is bigger than zero. (Because if it is zero,
> PostgreSQL will use the default_statistics_target setting.
>    

Actually, 0 (zero) disables statistics gathering. -1 is for reverting to 
the system default.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/interactive/sql-altertable.html


> Anyway, I agree that "SET STORAGE" is really noisy. Suppose a table with
> 20 columns. You will have 20 statements about storage. I agree that
> something like this is needed. My problem is: what should we use as a
> default value? PLAIN would be the default on non-toastable columns, and
> EXTENDED the one to use with toastable columns? is there a way to be
> sure of this?
>
>    
>>> On a side note: I would handle "WITH (OIDS=FALSE)" for table
>>> definitions likewise: only print it, if it differs from the default
>>> setting.
>>>        
> If we do this, a user won't be able to copy the SQL and paste/execute it
> on another server if this one has another value for default_with_oids.
> So, I'm against its removal (unless someone could prove I'm wrong :) ).
>    

As it is now, the policy is somewhat unclear. Some elements are added 
even though they are redundant under the local settings, others are not.
If we could switch between complete and compact display, this would help 
to clear the situation.
In my daily work I reuse code in the same db cluster 99% of the time - 
95% of the time in the same db. Redundant SQL is only cluttering the 
display and slows me down on a regular basis.
One or the other redundant key word should not hurt, but we could strip 
most of the noise. (Reduces traffic a bit, too.)
For cases where we want to copy objects to a different environment, the 
option "complete SQL" should be an improvement, too.

I would define "local settings" as what "SHOW ALL" returns for the 
current connection (database / user defaults are in effect).


>> Maybe an option "Show complete SQL"? To switch between "complete"
>> (noisy) and default display (only what is necessary to create an
>> identical object with the current settings).
>> Personally I am only interested in the "compact" version, but other
>> people's preferences may vary?
>>      
> I'm not sure about this either. How could a user know about the
> differences between a complete and a partial SQL?
>    

We could have a note at the very top (possibly optional., too):
-- SQL complete
-- SQL for current connection
Current settings are defined by the connection parameters displayed in 
the toolbar: host, user, database.


>> This would be a major wishlist item. Not complicated, but possibly many
>> lines of code.
>>      
> Well, actually, the only thing I think is needed here is to display (or
> not) some column's properties. Not complicated, not a lot of code.
>    

Even better. :) But there are probably a number of cases, where we might 
want to add SQL to the "complete" version or trim in the "compact" version.


>> What do you think of it? Should I create a ticket?
>>      
> Well, I would like to have a better handling of the "SET STORAGE"
> statement. So, yes, you can create a ticket on that, without being too
> specific on the solution, which still needs some talk.
>    

So we agree on "SET STORAGE". I'll create a ticket on that.

The option to switch between "complete" and "compact" is a different 
(more fundamental) feature. I would like it a lot, but I am not coding, 
so I can only suggest.


Regards
Erwin


In response to

Responses

pgadmin-hackers by date

Next:From: svnDate: 2010-04-29 15:33:34
Subject: SVN Commit by guillaume: r8308 - trunk/www/download
Previous:From: Ashesh VashiDate: 2010-04-29 14:19:48
Subject: PATCH: Debugger crashing on OSX

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group