|From:||Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Subject:||Re: Counting lines correctly in psql help displays|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 09/09/2015 10:27 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> On 09/05/2015 12:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Or we could just give up and replace the counts by INT_MAX, forcing use
>>> of the pager unless you've turned it off. All of those outputs are long
>>> enough now that it's hard to believe there are any common screen layouts
>>> where you don't end up invoking the pager anyway. (usage() is 60 lines,
>>> the others are more.) This is probably the reason why we've seldom
>>> noticed they're wrong --- it barely matters anymore.
>>> One way or the other I think it's past time to get out of the business
>>> of maintaining these counts. I'm willing to do the work of using a
>>> PQExpBuffer if people think it's worth the trouble to have an accurate
>>> count, but it may not be worth the code space.
>> I'm not terribly happy about the INT_MAX idea. Counting lines in a
>> PGExpBuffer seems OK. That way we could honor pager_min_lines, I hope.
> TBH, I'm not detecting enough concern about this issue to make it worth
> doing more than replacing the counts by INT_MAX. Nobody has stepped up
> and said "yeah, my terminal window is 100 lines high and I'll be really
> annoyed if \? invokes the pager unnecessarily". I plan to just do the
> three-line fix and move on.
Do people really use terminals without scrollbars for serious work any
more? Personally I'm in favor of forcing the pager less, not more. But
I'm not going to make a fuss, I'm just surprised.
|Next Message||Amit Kapila||2015-09-09 15:07:00||Re: Parallel Seq Scan|
|Previous Message||Robert Haas||2015-09-09 15:00:20||Re: [PATCH] SQL function to report log message|