Re: Adding comments to help understand psql hidden queries

From: Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Maiquel Grassi <grassi(at)hotmail(dot)com(dot)br>, David Christensen <david+pg(at)pgguru(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Adding comments to help understand psql hidden queries
Date: 2026-03-23 22:50:16
Message-ID: CAKAnmmLBiq4kMHGVJrGVH5stkxvEFcxjM5c8X650ipX5cG6H-g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thanks for looking this over. I'm pretty happy with the patch as is now. I
agree the INTERNAL QUERY is a nice touch. I once thought about adding
"psql" into the header somehow as a kind of application_name self
labelling, but I think INTERNAL QUERY will be distinct enough.

Notably, I didn't like that some of the headers said "table" and some said
> "relation". I made them all say "table", although you could certainly
> argue for the opposite.

I originally had "table", but then it felt weird in my testing when I was
describing a sequence or view it said table. So I'm a weak +1 for relation.

--
Cheers,
Greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Sabino Mullane 2026-03-23 22:54:28 Re: [PATCH] Provide support for trailing commas
Previous Message Peter Smith 2026-03-23 22:38:28 Re: DOCS - System Applications 'datadir' parameter