| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs? |
| Date: | 2022-04-06 18:40:40 |
| Message-ID: | 3123259.1649270440@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> No as sure about \show though. That seems like it could be confused with
> showing other stuff. Maybe consistent with \sf[+] and \sv[+] we could
> add \sc[+]?
Hmm ... my first reaction to that was "no, it should be \sp for
'parameter'". But with the neighboring \sf for 'function', it'd
be easy to think that maybe 'p' means 'procedure'.
I do agree that \show might be a bad choice, the reason being that
the adjacent \set command is for psql variables not GUCs; if we
had a \show I'd sort of expect it to be a variant spelling of
"\echo :variable".
"\sc" isn't awful perhaps.
Ah, naming ... the hardest problem in computer science.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2022-04-06 18:45:31 | Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs? |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2022-04-06 18:26:36 | Re: How about a psql backslash command to show GUCs? |