Re: New 'pg' consolidated metacommand patch

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: New 'pg' consolidated metacommand patch
Date: 2020-05-26 23:59:10
Message-ID: CAKFQuwbpsKddGNf7J_bDHNd3cepv-YTPE=+xOd9-A+goYjaYxg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 4:19 PM Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
wrote:

> I'd also appreciate +1 and -1 votes on the overall idea, in case this
> entire feature, regardless of implementation, is simply something the
> community does not want.
>

-1, at least as part of core. My question would be how much of this is
would be needed if someone were to create an external project that
installed a "pg" command on top of an existing PostgreSQL installation. Or
put differently, how many of the changes to the existing binaries are
required versus nice-to-have?

David J.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G. Johnston 2020-05-27 00:13:30 Re: Default gucs for EXPLAIN
Previous Message David Rowley 2020-05-26 23:52:56 Re: Default gucs for EXPLAIN