|From:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|To:||Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(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|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On 2017-03-11 13:06:13 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2017-03-10 15:45 GMT+01:00 Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>:
> > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 5:10 PM, 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 agree.
> > I'm not sure why we need to have separate settings to sort by schema
> >> name and table name.
> > I think sorting by schema name, object name makes sense for people, who
> > have objects of same name in different schemas.
> I am sending a updated version with separated sort direction in special
> There is a question. Has desc direction sense for columns like schema or
> table name?
> Using desc, asc for size is natural. But for tablename?
I think it's pretty clear that we don't have sufficient agreement on the
design, not to speak of an implementation for an agreed upon design, to
get this into v10. The patch also has been submitted late in the v10
cycle, and has received attention. I'm therefore moving it to the next
|Next Message||Andres Freund||2017-04-05 23:14:53||Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres|
|Previous Message||Michael Paquier||2017-04-05 23:04:49||Re: scram and \password|