On 4/6/22 2:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> writes:No as sure about \show though. That seems like it could be confused with showing other stuff. Maybe consistent with \sf[+] and \sv[+] we could add \sc[+]?Hmm ... my first reaction to that was "no, it should be \sp for 'parameter'". But with the neighboring \sf for 'function', it'd be easy to think that maybe 'p' means 'procedure'. I do agree that \show might be a bad choice, the reason being that the adjacent \set command is for psql variables not GUCs; if we had a \show I'd sort of expect it to be a variant spelling of "\echo :variable". "\sc" isn't awful perhaps. Ah, naming ... the hardest problem in computer science.
(but the easiest thing to have an opinion on ;) +1 on the feature proposal.I am a bit torn between "\dcp" (or \dsetting / \dconfig? we don't necessarily need for it to be super short) and "\sc". Certainly with pattern matching the interface for the "\d" commands would fit that pattern. "\sc" would make sense for a thorough introspection of what is in the GUC. That said, we get that with SHOW today.
So I'm leaning towards something in the "\d" family. Thanks, Jonathan
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
