| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [patch] Proposal for \crosstabview in psql |
| Date: | 2016-03-14 18:55:54 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZnpchNhCPQaFm3AN-CZD4uJJ70N0Ynmy3mNgbdnrwbWg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org> wrote:
>> But worse than either of those things, there is no real
>> agreement on what the overall design of this feature
>> should be.
>
> The part in the design that raised concerns upthread is
> essentially how headers sorting is exposed to the user and
> implemented.
>
> As suggested in [1], I've made some drastic changes in the
> attached patch to take the comments (from Dean R., Tom L.)
> into account.
> [ ... lengthy explanation ... ]
> - also NULLs are no longer excluded from headers, per Peter E.
> comment in [2].
Dean, Tom, Peter, what do you think of the new version?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-03-14 19:10:13 | Upcoming back-branch releases |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-03-14 18:51:47 | Re: Prepared Statement support for Parallel query |