Re: Re: proposal - psql: possibility to specify sort for describe commands, when size is printed

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: proposal - psql: possibility to specify sort for describe commands, when size is printed
Date: 2017-10-28 12:46:46
Message-ID: CAFj8pRAVV2TFHsFCV=c9Aaeq7kPWGQBLkOwGronpAN583zqhWg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi

2017-09-22 21:31 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:

>
>
> 2017-09-22 21:12 GMT+02:00 Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)
> com>:
>
>> On 9/22/17 09:16, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> > Example: somebody set SORT_COLUMNS to schema_name value. This is
>> > nonsense for \l command
>> >
>> > Now, I am thinking so more correct and practical design is based on
>> > special mode, activated by variable
>> >
>> > PREFER_SIZE_SORT .. (off, asc, desc)
>> >
>> > This has sense for wide group of commands that can show size. And when
>> > size is not visible, then this option is not active.
>>
>> Maybe this shouldn't be a variable at all. It's not like you'll set
>> this as a global preference. You probably want it for one command only.
>> So a per-command option might make more sense.
>>
>
> Sure, I cannot to know, what users will do. But, when I need to see a size
> of objects, then I prefer the sort by size desc every time. If I need to
> find some object, then I can to use a searching in pager. So in my case,
> this settings will be in psqlrc. In GoodData we used years own
> customization - the order by size was hardcoded and nobody reported me any
> issue.
>
> Alexander proposed some per command option, but current syntax of psql
> commands don't allows some simple parametrization. If it can be user
> friendly, then it should be short. From implementation perspective, it
> should be simply parsed. It should be intuitive too - too much symbols
> together is not good idea.
>
> Maybe some prefix design - but it is not design for common people
> (although these people don't use psql usually)
>
> '\sort size \dt ?
>
> \dt:sort_by_size
> \dt+:sort_by_size ?
>
> I don't see any good design in this direction
>
>
I though about Alexander proposal, and I am thinking so it can be probably
best if we respect psql design. I implemented two command suffixes
(supported only when it has sense) "s" sorted by size and "d" as descent

so list of tables can be sorted with commands:

\dt+sd (in this case, the order is not strict), so command
\dtsd+ is working too (same \disd+ or \di+sd)

These two chars are acceptable. Same principle is used for \l command

\lsd+ or \l+sd

What do you think about it?

Regards

Pavel

> Regards
>
> Pavel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
>> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>>
>
>

Attachment Content-Type Size
psql-sortdesc-suffix.patch text/x-patch 8.8 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chris Travers 2017-10-28 14:24:43 Re: proposal: schema variables
Previous Message Chris Travers 2017-10-28 11:22:20 WIP: Restricting pg_rewind to data/wal dirs