| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: Re: proposal - psql: possibility to specify sort for describe commands, when size is printed | 
| Date: | 2017-03-10 14:16:45 | 
| Message-ID: | 20170310141645.GF9812@tamriel.snowman.net | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
* Peter Eisentraut (peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> On 2/24/17 16:32, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >     set EXTENDED_DESCRIBE_SORT size_desc
> >     \dt+
> >     \l+
> >     \di+
> > 
> >     Possible variants: schema_table, table_schema, size_desc, size_asc
> 
> I can see this being useful, but I think it needs to be organized a
> little better.
> 
> Sort key and sort direction should be separate settings.
> 
> I'm not sure why we need to have separate settings to sort by schema
> name and table name.  But if we do, then we should support that for all
> object types.  I think maybe that's something we shouldn't get into
> right now.
> 
> So I would have one setting for sort key = {name|size} and on for sort
> direction = {asc|desc}.
Perhaps I'm trying to be overly cute here, but why not let the user
simply provide a bit of SQL to be put at the end of the query?
That is, something like:
\pset EXTENDED_DESCRIBE_ORDER_LIMIT 'ORDER BY 5 DESC LIMIT 10'
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2017-03-10 14:29:16 | Re: Index usage for elem-contained-by-const-range clauses | 
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-03-10 14:15:43 | Re: Automatic cleanup of oldest WAL segments with pg_receivexlog |