Re: Psql patch to show access methods info

From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com
Cc: a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru, thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, david(at)pgmasters(dot)net, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz
Subject: Re: Psql patch to show access methods info
Date: 2019-09-19 09:47:08
Message-ID: 20190919.184708.25203401.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello. FWIW..

At Wed, 18 Sep 2019 11:04:40 -0300, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote in <20190918140440(dot)GA28323(at)alvherre(dot)pgsql>
> I think in order for this feature to be more complete "\d index" should
> show the opfamily name, also, even when it's the default one. (Let's
> not put the opfamily when it's the default in "\d table", as we do when
> the opfamily is not default; that would lead, I think, to too much
> clutter.)
>
> > > On the other hand, from a user perspective, what you really want to know
> > > is: what opfamilies exist for datatype T, and what operators are
> > > supported by the opfamily I have chosen? The current patch doesn't
> > > really help you find that out.

I have thought that several times.

> I hope that in some future somebody will contribute towards this, which
> I think is more important (from users POV) than the below one:
>
> > > I think \dAp isn't terribly informative from a user perspective. The
> > > support procs are just an opfamily implementation detail.
> >
> > I've expressed my opinion regarding \dAp in [1]. In my observations,
> > some advanced users can write btree/hash opclasses in pl/* languages.
> > This doesn't require knowledge of core developer. And they may find
> > \dAp command useful. What do you think?
>
> I have never tried or had the need to do that. I'll take your word for
> it, so I have no objection.
>
> I do wonder if \? is going to end up with too much clutter, and if so do
> we need to make \? show only the most important commands and relegate
> some others to \?+ ... however, going over the existing \? I see no
> command that I would move to \?+ so \dAp would be alone there, which
> would be pretty strange. So let's forget this angle for now; but if
> psql acquires too much "system innards" functionality then I say we
> should consider it.

Before the fact that usable slot of two-letter commands is almost
filled, my poor memory rejects to remember the commands that is
used infrequently.. ctrl-I suggests many two-or-three letter
meta commands but I can't tell what is the command I'm searching
for. \? shows too many commands as you mentioned.

If something like "\? | grep index" works, it would be helpful.

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message vignesh C 2019-09-19 09:48:56 Re: Option to dump foreign data in pg_dump
Previous Message vignesh C 2019-09-19 09:38:48 Re: Option to dump foreign data in pg_dump