Re: proposal - patch: psql - sort_by_size

From: Alvaro Herrera from 2ndQuadrant <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)pghackers(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: proposal - patch: psql - sort_by_size
Date: 2019-09-11 22:01:26
Message-ID: 20190911220126.GA10144@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2019-Jul-31, Rafia Sabih wrote:

> I had a look at this patch, seems like a useful thing to have.

So the two initial questions for this patch are

1. Is this a feature we want?
2. Is the user interface correct?

I think the feature is useful, and Rafia also stated as much. Therefore
ISTM we're okay on that front.

As for the UI, Fabien thinks the patch adopts one that's far too
simplistic, and I agree. Fabien has proposed a number of different UIs,
but doesn't seem convinced of any of them. One of them was to have
"options" in the command,
\dt+ [-o 1d,2a]

Another idea is to use variables in a more general form. So instead of
Pavel's proposal of SORT_BY_SIZE=on we could do something like
SORT_BY=[list]
where the list after the equal sign consists of predetermined elements
(say SIZE, NAME, SCHEMA and so on) and indicates a specific column to
sort by. This is less succint than Fabien's idea, and in particular you
can't specify it in the command itself but have to set the variable
beforehand instead.

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2019-09-11 22:09:33 Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera from 2ndQuadrant 2019-09-11 21:25:38 Re: pg_upgrade fails with non-standard ACL