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

Re: Pet Peeves?

From: Erik Jones <ejones(at)engineyard(dot)com>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Pet Peeves?
Date: 2009-01-30 00:00:53
Message-ID: F877D5FB-0F1C-4F84-BCCB-08C1AC973E82@engineyard.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
On Jan 29, 2009, at 9:43 AM, David Fetter wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 05:18:19PM +0000, Gregory Stark wrote:
>> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
>>
>>> * No built-in ways to get the information psql gets.  "See what
>>> psql is doing" isn't an option when somebody doesn't have psql on
>>> hand.
>>
>> Uhm, what information are you referring to here?
>
> All the stuff that generates \d output is available only to psql.
> When somebody wants to make another client, or even expose some of
> that functionality, they pretty much have to roll it from scratch.

I'd say a good example close of this is the ability to generate full  
create statements for database objects via an SQL command.  I.e.  
shelling out to pg_dump is not always a fun option.

Erik Jones, Database Administrator
Engine Yard
Support, Scalability, Reliability
866.518.9273 x 260
Location: US/Pacific
IRC: mage2k






In response to

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-01-30 00:54:28
Subject: Re: Full backup - pg_dumpall sufficient?
Previous:From: Greg SmithDate: 2009-01-29 23:37:57
Subject: Re: Pet Peeves?

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