From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add \pset options for boolean value display |
Date: | 2025-06-24 22:43:02 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwaXqVOky9czAAwOg6JPg5EruNzxjZXFyT-aShqbuU5WXw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 3:30 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 8:24 PM David G. Johnston <
> > david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> It's \pset null for boolean values
>
> > v1, Ready aside from bike-shedding the name.
>
> Do we really want this? It's the sort of thing that has a strong
> potential to break anything that reads psql output --- and I'd
> urge you to think that human consumers of psql output may well
> be the minority. There's an awful lot of scripts out there.
>
> I concede that \pset null hasn't had a huge amount of pushback,
> but that doesn't mean that making boolean output unpredictable
> will be cost-free. And the costs won't be paid by you (or me),
> but by people who didn't ask for it.
>
>
If we didn't use psql to produce all of our examples I'd be a bit more
accepting of this position. Yes, users of it need to do so responsibly.
But we have tons of pretty-presentation-oriented options in psql so, yes, I
do believe this is well within its charter.
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2025-06-24 22:59:16 | Re: Periodic FSM vacuum doesn't happen in one-pass strategy vacuum. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-06-24 22:30:58 | Re: Add \pset options for boolean value display |